Let me convince you

[Orias]

Christian God = Death? Well that's just one aspect isn't it? He's also a creative force, so he would be the God of life AND death. Liberation = Godlike? How so? Liberation just means you're free, doesn't imply that you have any power, just that you're not bound to whatever it your liberated from. God like = freedom? Not necessarily, there are gods who are bound, sometimes by even their own rules. Godhood (assuming that's what you meant by "goodhood" unless you're just throwing together words) = choice of being or not being? Every entity has that choice so it's not exactly a god like power at all, anything can off themselves if they so choose to. Choice = sacrifice? Let's say (strawman argument incoming) one person has an apple, and one person has a gun, and I can only choose one. Well naturally I pick the gun, and then shoot the guy with the apple, now I have both, so... where's the sacrifice on my part?

The Christian God is not the God of Life, he's tried to hard too keep people from making babies. Liberation is God like because liberation exalts the freedom of power and choice. No God is bound by law, less they not be Gods and only "God like". Choice does equal sacrifice, you picked the gun and shot the guy with the apple well now you sacrificed the guy with the apple so you could take it.

Assuming much?

Nope, its an etymological fact.

Your logic gets lost halfway through

Mine doesn't, your's does.

Superior is subjective; yes it is. Teacher student relationships vary considerably. Worship may be based in fear for some. For others it is about respect and for others there are many more reasons for worship.

Respect is not a gateway for submission, it is a gateway for sameness, perhaps dominance.

Not all Satanists are the same.

Besides that they're oppositional, maybe you're right

Can I play, too? I'm not Christian or atheist of any vein... I'll just reply anyway

You're always welcome to play, just remember who's territory it is

And you're responses have always been enjoyable for me to read.

Why is invocation meaningful and nothing else? I mean, I realize I can't inject any meaning into anything for you that you don't personally desire to accept, but why is invocation somehow not personal and at the same time meaningful? Inconsistency is no good for me.

Because everyone does it, consciously or unconsciously. Inconsistency makes way for a consistent unpredictable set of motions.

Well, I certainly don't believe in an all-powerful god but that is just about the only type of being I can't imagine existing. Everything short of omnipotence seems possible to me. The fact that we aren't anywhere near godlike is really just a function of time and effort, if you ask me. There is no limit to imagination, and therefore no limit to reality either over a long enough time frame.

I believe in an all powerful God, but he only pertains to his domain and not others, unless others are willing to intrude or he decides to start a campaign.

You'll have to pardon my lack of education in Satanist dogma, but is this due to the Christian god only being important in relation to an afterlife?

No its because its in my belief that the Christians stole their God from the Canaanite God of death, Mot. After life...meh, I'd rather call it Step 1.

Only on a personal level, and even then it's not the only thing you need. Action is required to translate perception into liberation. Also, desire for liberation is required. Those that have no desire or ability to be liberated are never liberated regardless of perception.

Not necessarily, perception does not necessarily need to be translated, just acknowledged. And there does not always have to be a desire for liberation, some are just born so, regardless of if they are capable of perceiving a vision other than their own.

That's a bit of a stretch. It may be a prerequisite, but I don't think they are equivalent. Like I said, action and desire are also required.

Not necessarily, one can effortlessly fulfill an action without ever lifting a finger or writing a rough draft.

One can train for several years in an aspect pertaining to motive, while another could possibly pick it up effortlessly and use it against comparing motives.

Alright, I'll take that definition.

Woo!

Solipsism? A fair position, I suppose. What happened to not being all-powerful, though?

Not necessarily solipsistic, since I am very aware of the other selfs that have applied themselves strategically to this response. Power comes from knowing how to not use it.

I suppose we usually give up something to gain another. But choice must necessarily be conscious or it isn't choice. Since the sacrifice is rarely examined before a choice is made, I have a hard time equating the two. Then again, I suppose factoring in perception brings the sacrifice to light and informs the choice. Even considering that, I think the gain is by far a more significant portion of choice than the sacrifice required for that gain.

Of course, though sacrifice means losing a vital part to attain an even more vital part.

Of course. Superiors are only superior because they are superior to us. They have their own superiors and we are superior to something inferior to us. It's a big subjective chain of relation. Transcending this chain, however, is not necessarily possible or even useful. Its a nice thought, but when push comes to shove, some things simply overpower us. This may be temporary or even illusory, but again perception+action+desire and not any one apart from the others.

Useful things are determined by usage, transcending the subjective realms requires objective thought.

Subjective, is essentially objective in meaning.

I hope you mean specifically god as a teacher and not teaching as a whole. I can agree with you if that's what you mean, otherwise I am glad to have and be a teacher. Nothing about it is nonsensical to me. It seems perfectly sensible and rewarding.

Woo!

Maybe, but the real question is whether this fear is misplaced or not. Depending on your current situation, fear can be the most productive response. Having never met any gods, I can't really see a reason to fear them. But that's a lot like a wild animal not fearing a human. Its not really a benefit to those animals, is it? Unless you feel that defiance is the most important aspect of life. Being that you are a Satanist this may very well be the case.

AYE! OH!

I think of it as this, in the cage I will fear my opponent, thus leading me to a means to completely destroy him, because you cannot turn tail to turn, you will have no choice but to fight with fear and anxiety.

 

[Orias]

Sorry for the eye sores guys, I hope I didn't make the responses too lengthy or confusing.

And sorry if I made it complicated for you to quote responses, it was a lot easier for me to multi quote!

Kepher

 

[LongGe123]

I would rank myself 10 on the scale in that I don't believe in God as any kind of deity as told by the world's current religions. I do think however that it's possible that what is now termed "God" is perhaps some extremely advanced unknown force that occurs naturally in the universe that we just have no comprehension of currently. I believe that as our understanding of the universe advances more and more, there will be less and less fervent belief in the gods we currently identify today.

 

[Sir Doom]

You're always welcome to play, just remember who's territory it is

And you're responses have always been enjoyable for me to read.

Hee hee, I figured as much

Because everyone does it, consciously or unconsciously. Inconsistency makes way for a consistent unpredictable set of motions.

So discord is the purpose? ICWUTUDIDTHAR! Well played.

I believe in an all powerful God, but he only pertains to his domain and not others, unless others are willing to intrude or he decides to start a campaign.

Do you mean all-powerful within his domain? Or all-powerful in all domains and simply uninterested in others besides his own? In either case it seems like an awful waste of power.

No its because its in my belief that the Christians stole their God from the Canaanite God of death, Mot. After life...meh, I'd rather call it Step 1.

That's interesting. What makes you think they stole Mot? I don't see the similarity at all. Different name, different story, different attributes... What is left of Mot?

Not necessarily, perception does not necessarily need to be translated, just acknowledged. And there does not always have to be a desire for liberation, some are just born so, regardless of if they are capable of perceiving a vision other than their own.

Without desire perception is never sought and never acquired. Without action perception is squandered and useless. Without all three liberation never becomes a reality and remains within the imagination.

Not necessarily, one can effortlessly fulfill an action without ever lifting a finger or writing a rough draft.

Certainly, but action without desire and perception is unguided by self and therefore not liberated. It would be controlled from without.

One can train for several years in an aspect pertaining to motive, while another could possibly pick it up effortlessly and use it against comparing motives.

Again, without perception and desire these actions are not liberated. A person can desire to be a baseball player, but without perception has no path to achieve this goal. Without action the goal will never be achieved. If the person is born with the ability but does not desire to play baseball, they will not seek out the path, nor achieve it. Unless they are slaves to another's desire and perception.

Not necessarily solipsistic, since I am very aware of the other selfs that have applied themselves strategically to this response. Power comes from knowing how to not use it.

As an all-powerful god is possible in your reality I'll concede this point. I thought you were saying it wasn't all-powerful before. I do believe conservation of power is equally as 'powerful' as gaining it in the first place.

Of course, though sacrifice means losing a vital part to attain an even more vital part.

Maybe choice is more accurately described as risk, then? In many cases, sacrifice does not result in gain, and gain does not always require vital sacrifice.

Useful things are determined by usage, transcending the subjective realms requires objective thought.

Subjective, is essentially objective in meaning.

Sure, but it also requires first a desire to transcend, then the perception of the path to transcendence, and finally the act of transcending. Without all three steps, the perception remains an unwanted and unwalked path.

I think of it as this, in the cage I will fear my opponent, thus leading me to a means to completely destroy him, because you cannot turn tail to turn, you will have no choice but to fight with fear and anxiety.

I think you have many choices in the cage. Submission is the first thing that comes to mind. Of course, not many would find that option palatable.

The question to ask is, "How does one find oneself in a cage?"

 

[Orias]

I would rank myself 10 on the scale in that I don't believe in God as any kind of deity as told by the world's current religions. I do think however that it's possible that what is now termed "God" is perhaps some extremely advanced unknown force that occurs naturally in the universe that we just have no comprehension of currently. I believe that as our understanding of the universe advances more and more, there will be less and less fervent belief in the gods we currently identify today.

I think as the universe grows to understand itself more the possibility of what God as defined by the OP becomes more potentially reachable.

 

[Orias]

Do you mean all-powerful within his domain? Or all-powerful in all domains and simply uninterested in others besides his own? In either case it seems like an awful waste of power.

Well in one's domain it is necessary to exert such power, but whether or not it involves contention with other domains has yet to be shown.

Part of warfare involves expressing pure dominance.

That's interesting. What makes you think they stole Mot? I don't see the similarity at all. Different name, different story, different attributes... What is left of Mot?

The bible is practically a gateway to our own doom, Mot seeks the souls of the dead for power, and so does the Christian God.

Considering that all religions pick and chose attributes from other Gods, the Canaanite is one of the most ancient religions other than the Hindu.

Without desire perception is never sought and never acquired. Without action perception is squandered and useless. Without all three liberation never becomes a reality and remains within the imagination.

Perception is essentially liberation, a man can be surrounded by white walls and still continue to water the inner garden that lay within.

Even one possess no desire, perception is still realized.

Certainly, but action without desire and perception is unguided by self and therefore not liberated. It would be controlled from without.

Physical self and perceptional self are two very different things, liberation involves content and willingness to form new molds to otherwise meaningless apprehensions.

Again, without perception and desire these actions are not liberated. A person can desire to be a baseball player, but without perception has no path to achieve this goal. Without action the goal will never be achieved. If the person is born with the ability but does not desire to play baseball, they will not seek out the path, nor achieve it. Unless they are slaves to another's desire and perception.

Liberation is not a motive to seek a means to concur with a certain path, but rather a means to successively express one's undesired motive to gradually fill the un-desiring ego.

As an all-powerful god is possible in your reality I'll concede this point. I thought you were saying it wasn't all-powerful before. I do believe conservation of power is equally as 'powerful' as gaining it in the first place.

Agreed.

But when it comes to Gods conservation involves liberation of the undisputed, they must liberally adhere to the powers that feed them.

Maybe choice is more accurately described as risk, then? In many cases, sacrifice does not result in gain, and gain does not always require vital sacrifice.

But in order to gain virtually one must sacrifice a vital part of the ID or ego, in order to maintain a stable gain of desired sacrifices.

Like me flipping burgers so I can fight in a cage.

Sure, but it also requires first a desire to transcend, then the perception of the path to transcendence, and finally the act of transcending. Without all three steps, the perception remains an unwanted and unwalked path.

Desire, though, is essentially not a willful part of expansion, considering I never willed to exist, therefore I never truly willed to do anything I continue to do.

I think you have many choices in the cage. Submission is the first thing that comes to mind. Of course, not many would find that option palatable.

I usually look for the knockout.

The question to ask is, "How does one find oneself in a cage?"

Some animals, feel the need to fight for a paycheck. Some animals need to be caged and prodded, to fight with sincere and hostile emotion.

 

[Sir Doom]

Well in one's domain it is necessary to exert such power, but whether or not it involves contention with other domains has yet to be shown.

Part of warfare involves expressing pure dominance.

Okay, I think I see what you mean now. The power is absolute due to an immediate and decisive response to any contention of that power. Do I have that right?

The bible is practically a gateway to our own doom, Mot seeks the souls of the dead for power, and so does the Christian God.

Considering that all religions pick and chose attributes from other Gods, the Canaanite is one of the most ancient religions other than the Hindu.

I see your point here, as well. I would probably settle for a similarity between the two as opposed to them being one and the same, but that's probably just aesthetics.

Perception is essentially liberation, a man can be surrounded by white walls and still continue to water the inner garden that lay within.

Even one possess no desire, perception is still realized.

To water is the action. Perception without desire that results in action is slavery. Desire is yours or another's it is never absent or action would be absent as well.

Physical self and perceptional self are two very different things, liberation involves content and willingness to form new molds to otherwise meaningless apprehensions.

Willingness is desire. To form is to act. Perception is the path from willingness to formulation.

Liberation is not a motive to seek a means to concur with a certain path, but rather a means to successively express one's undesired motive to gradually fill the un-desiring ego.

If the motive is yours and the path is yours and the action is yours, you are not concurring with anything but yourself. To abandon desire is to abandon will. And to abandon will is the essence of slavery.

Agreed.

But when it comes to Gods conservation involves liberation of the undisputed, they must liberally adhere to the powers that feed them.

True, true. I made a thread in ethics that was mostly ignored that said this:

A slave is more powerful than a dead man,
A servant is more powerful than a slave,
An ally is more powerful than a servant,
and a friend is more powerful than an ally.

I assume it works this way for gods as well. Originally, I was using it to suggest that might does indeed make right.

But in order to gain virtually one must sacrifice a vital part of the ID or ego, in order to maintain a stable gain of desired sacrifices.

Like me flipping burgers so I can fight in a cage.

Ah I see, the cage was no mere metaphor now. Things become clearer. As you said before, though. The sacrifice enables greater gain. The reduction of ego from flipping burgers is wildly offset by the ego gained from crushing an opponent or even the attempt to do so. In the military, I was treated like so much slime on a sergeants boot which is an intentional blow to the ego. But the increase to that ego from being a finely tuned instrument of warfare is far greater. And although I may have abandoned my will during this time, the goal was mine from the start. The path was walked intentionally.

Desire, though, is essentially not a willful part of expansion, considering I never willed to exist, therefore I never truly willed to do anything I continue to do.

I would say it can't be known whether you willed to exist or not. If you choose to believe it was despite your will or simply in absence of it, so be it. But this in itself is a surrender not a liberation.

I usually look for the knockout.

Haha, well I was operating under the assumption that you found yourself in the cage against your will. Now that I know it is intentional, that makes my point even better.

Some animals, feel the need to fight for a paycheck. Some animals need to be caged and prodded, to fight with sincere and hostile emotion.

Need is the illusion. All need is desire in disguise. You love to fight, you'll just have to admit it

 

[s2a]

This, for me, was a bit like watching a French movie - I understand what's in front of me, but have no idea what the hell it's doing there.

What are you getting at?

LOL. My sentiments exactly. Regrettably, I must parse my frubal powers to others first...

 

[Falvlun]

God is simply invocation, anything more is personal and essentially meaningless to me (and likely everyone else).

I still don't really understand what is meant when it is said that god is invocation. Do you mean god is the actual desire/plea? Or is god the culmination or fulfillment of that prayer? And how is that not the most personal possible form of god?

 

[Orias]

Okay, I think I see what you mean now. The power is absolute due to an immediate and decisive response to any contention of that power. Do I have that right?

I wouldn't say absolute, but as far as the rest is concerned, basically.

I see your point here, as well. I would probably settle for a similarity between the two as opposed to them being one and the same, but that's probably just aesthetics.

Well that is essentially what it is. I think of it like a mirror, the product is the same but the reflection is essential reactive to the original.

And yea, aesthetics has a lot to do with it

To water is the action. Perception without desire that results in action is slavery. Desire is yours or another's it is never absent or action would be absent as well.

Exactly, but the action does not have to be limited to what we see, or literally act upon.

Its like using the force :sw:

Willingness is desire. To form is to act. Perception is the path from willingness to formulation.

Willingness for the most part is desire, but its also for a lack of a better term, a spathe in the static form of existence.

If the motive is yours and the path is yours and the action is yours, you are not concurring with anything but yourself. To abandon desire is to abandon will. And to abandon will is the essence of slavery.

Not necessarily, will is often conflictive with itself, which includes formulating hypothesis considering the ego and ID and all the benefits in between.

True, true. I made a thread in ethics that was mostly ignored that said this:

A slave is more powerful than a dead man,
A servant is more powerful than a slave,
An ally is more powerful than a servant,
and a friend is more powerful than an ally.

I assume it works this way for gods as well. Originally, I was using it to suggest that might does indeed make right.

This can be conclusive assuming that one can over come might, but in the end right is irrelevant, since it is subject to the will of might.

Ah I see, the cage was no mere metaphor now. Things become clearer. As you said before, though. The sacrifice enables greater gain. The reduction of ego from flipping burgers is wildly offset by the ego gained from crushing an opponent or even the attempt to do so. In the military, I was treated like so much slime on a sergeants boot which is an intentional blow to the ego. But the increase to that ego from being a finely tuned instrument of warfare is far greater. And although I may have abandoned my will during this time, the goal was mine from the start. The path was walked intentionally.

Exactly. Discipline often plays a strong factor in one's ability to uphold the very things we are talking about

I would say it can't be known whether you willed to exist or not. If you choose to believe it was despite your will or simply in absence of it, so be it. But this in itself is a surrender not a liberation.

Not necessarily, I know that I have will because I did not originally have it.

Surrender can differ from transition to reversal. In essence, the best way to often overcome brute strength is not to face it head on, but to flow and surrender to its strength, by countering with swiftness and precision.

Haha, well I was operating under the assumption that you found yourself in the cage against your will. Now that I know it is intentional, that makes my point even better.

As soon as my mind gets set into that way of thought, whether or not I am actually competing or not the cage becomes relevant.

Even if I'm in the streets, the best way to fight is like you have no choice.

Need is the illusion. All need is desire in disguise. You love to fight, you'll just have to admit it

Heh :drool:

 

[Orias]

Do you mean god is the actual desire/plea?

Yes.

And how is that not the most personal possible form of god?

Because it personally means something else to everyone.

The invocation itself is not personal, though the reasons why and the justifications used to fulfill the end means is.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But now, of course, I have to ask: Why call that God?

Because it personally means something else to everyone.

Okay... so it is the most personal possible form of God.

The invocation itself is not personal, though the reasons why and the justifications used to fulfill the end means is.

What do you mean the invocation itself is not personal? How could a desire or a prayer be anything but personal? It's not like Joe is telling Melinda what to invoke. Melinda is telling Melinda what she wants to invoke.

 

[Orias]

Thanks for clearing that up.

But now, of course, I have to ask: Why call that God?

Because it is within my belief that it is the most primal of human passions, something that has been curiously heart felt since the dawn of man. It is mysterious, and perhaps truly unknowable.

And albeit, most of the time my own invocations as well as others is completely superior to my current or past invocations.

Hence my belief in Xeper, and yada yada yada.

Okay... so it is the most personal possible form of God.

Its personal like its a piece of paper.

Thats a good analogy, the more you write the more personal it becomes, but essentially the blank sheet is for all of us.

What do you mean the invocation itself is not personal? How could a desire or a prayer be anything but personal? It's not like Joe is telling Melinda what to invoke. Melinda is telling Melinda what she wants to invoke.

Because invocation is not necessarily a prayer nor a calling, it is perceived expression, everyone does it.

Like subjective being an objective concept, everyone perceives, hence it being an objective stance. However, not everyone expresses the same objective material, making it subjective.

 

[Sir Doom]

I wouldn't say absolute, but as far as the rest is concerned, basically.

Well that is essentially what it is. I think of it like a mirror, the product is the same but the reflection is essential reactive to the original.

And yea, aesthetics has a lot to do with it

Glad we got those cleared up!

Exactly, but the action does not have to be limited to what we see, or literally act upon.

Its like using the force :sw:

No doubt. Physical action is not always required to fulfill desire or to utilize perception.

Willingness for the most part is desire, but its also for a lack of a better term, a spathe in the static form of existence.

I can't get down on the unwilling existence. My ego demands that my desire to 'be' trumps all things. Probably aesthetics again

Not necessarily, will is often conflictive with itself, which includes formulating hypothesis considering the ego and ID and all the benefits in between.

This is why perception remains important. To discern true worth and weigh conflicting desires against each other.

This can be conclusive assuming that one can over come might, but in the end right is irrelevant, since it is subject to the will of might.

I was saying that right becomes might through increasing mutual advantage. By sacrificing fleeting self-indulgence, we achieve greater power through the indulgence of our peers and their reciprocation. In the case of gods, if they require our power to sustain them, it behooves them to create a friendship far above a master/slave relationship (which I see a lot in major religions).

Exactly. Discipline often plays a strong factor in one's ability to uphold the very things we are talking about

True. We must ignore the momentary nagging of will to satisfy the far reaching goals we desire to satisfy.

Not necessarily, I know that I have will because I did not originally have it.

I would say, I know I have will because I have lost it and found it again. Aesthetics once more

Surrender can differ from transition to reversal. In essence, the best way to often overcome brute strength is not to face it head on, but to flow and surrender to its strength, by countering with swiftness and precision.

Strength, swiftness, precision. These are all forms of power. That one overcomes another indicates that they are fundamentally equals. All forms of power will accomplish all desires given correct application. Perception shows us the path of utilization that will best serve our goals. And action carries out the plan. This is not surrender but the application of correct power to defeat an opponent. Brute strength can also be overcome with greater brute strength, yes? But if one does not possess this power, another form must be used to satisfy the goal. Its the power that liberates us

As soon as my mind gets set into that way of thought, whether or not I am actually competing or not the cage becomes relevant.
Even if I'm in the streets, the best way to fight is like you have no choice.
Heh :drool:

Ah, now surrendering to instinct and/or training is quite another thing entirely. Instinct and training are both forms of power, as well. To apply them willingly is never a surrender. Another example of sacrificing will in the moment to achieve a greater goal. But the goal is still yours.

 

[Orias]

So much for debate, Mr. Sir Doom.

Its almost like we just played a very advanced version of word association.