Zos Kia Cultus

The brain has electrical reactions along synapses. Science does not understand the process. To a degree, sure, but not in total. The nervous system obviously uses electricity. To stick your finger in a light socket will fuck up your nervous system, regardless of whether or not you believe in God. Ha, well that is a smart retort for those who believe in a separate "vital force" at work within organism, right? Not so. In fact, this is incredibly obtuse. What even modern science recognizes, but has not yet solved, is the issue of "will."

Sure, your bodily functions involve electricity, but the force that
sets the apparatus in motion is completely unknown. Yes, an electric occurance causes the nervous system to react, but the force which acts on the system is unknown. In other words, science has not yet figured out what commands the action. There is a force which controls the nervous system that is wholly "ineffable" to this day. The human brain is a mystery, even with all the knowledge we've gained. To consider this matter solved is wishful thinking.

>I never profess to be a Satanist... that would be admitting I
believed in God and that's just silly.
>
> -Freak

It's silly if you have a silly concept of what "God" means, which is
probably why most metaphysicians tend to use more (or less)
descriptive terms (depending on how you look at it) such as "The
All" or "Divine Providence."

Really, if you start thinking along these lines, the idea of God
becomes synonymous with the advanced and unidentified
forces and principles in modern sciences such quantum
physics, molecular biology and what is often referred to as a
pseudoscience, psychology.

To name a few: structural hierarchy, chaos theory, ether/dark
matter, "like-mind-but-not-mind" biological and chemical
processes, holographic memory (in psychology, don't make the mistake, buddy), the still-unidentified "energy"
force acting within organisms erroneously dubbed for the
present time as "electricity" (and knowingly so, by the way).

All these things are explained away flippantly by the layman, but
not so by the scientific community. These forces are merely
"defined" as well as possible, though entirely inadequately, until
such time when they can be further defined or redefined. Science
is good about only going so far and then claiming this "the end of
the matter" for the time being, leaving much unexplained, but
often using the explained as an temporary "answer" along the
pursuit of the not-yet-discovered.

Scientists frequently make the argument that theories are simply
defined "less turgidly" than laws due to circumstance, which
close analysis proves to be a feat of philosophical prowess
rather than infallible logic, as history has proven; more than just
"guess-work" for certain, but less than conclusive by far.

Science has done for common man what common religion can
not and that is all. If you are comparing the "God" of science to
the "God" of common religion, the comparison is a fool's game.
But there are other concepts of "God" out there which even
Science believes in for certain!

Satanism:
To actually BELIEVE in Satan (which many Satanists actually do not) means
that you would necessarily be accepting the Christian doctrine
and have chosen to side with the losing team. Why do I say
"losing team?" Well, according to Christianity, YHVH is The All
and Satan is therefore a lesser creation of the all, which has its
very being WITHIN the all. (This isn't merely a father who's had a
son and that son has no grown up and wants to kick his ass.)
Unless your belief is indeed that Satan is THE ALL and YHVH
the adversary, this is the basis of your belief system.

If your faith resides with any of the ancient gods and you simply
choose the term "Satanism" for modernity's sake, you're still
subscribing to a limiting belief system. All of the gods have failed
to rise above the petty concerns of common man. Perfection is
not found in self-serving goals, as nature shows plainly. You
may convince yourself that survival of the fittest is the right path
and the weak should be trampled underfoot, but nature shows
just as plainly that the strong and powerful also die and their life
is consumed by struggle and unpleasantness far worse than
those who strive to empower others, rather than overpower
others. The psychology of selfishness is an elusive and
self-defeating attitude which can only be realized through life
experience, which is often and unfortunately long process. It is
hard to explain someone in a shallow, materialistic cycle why
their attitudes are destructive, if they are happily in possession of
their much-coveted material possessions as a result of their bad
behavior.

Hopefully I've addressed all attitudes of "Satanism" in this brief discussion, be it
the actual Satan or the metaphoric "liberator of 'slaves,'" not that
it has changed anyone's attitudes, of course (as stated plainly in
the last sentence of the preceding paragraph). For those that
have eyes to see and ears to hear, to the pure all is pure, to the
base all is base. Plain and simple.

God:
Hebrew does not possess
a neuter, which is part of the reason YHVH is considered "male." Male
represents "will," which is the reason the male is given the authority
as "the head of the household" to make the decisions. Female
represents creation. God's will was to create, thus he was given the
Male gender. Thus, by his will he impregnated the universe. As a side
note, it may be interesting for you to remember the concept of "mother
nature," fertility cults, goddess worship, etc. which are not found in
the bible, but something to consider in light of the fact that
Judeo-Christian doctrine is an amalgamation of several different
common religions that came before it.

I am not claiming this viewpoint is correct, mind you, but
reitterating the fact that this is the basis of the concept of Satan.
True, Genesis is largely ripped off from the Enuma Elish, but also
remember that Marduk and Tiamat were not The All, but two opposing
Gods fighting for control. This is not the case with YHVH and Satan in
Christian doctrine. In fact, both Marduk and Tiamat are referred to in
the bible as false Gods. Marduk was the cheif deity of Babylon and
eremiah prophesied that Marduk would be put to shame (Jer 50:2).
Tiamat is at least alluded to in Job.

It is a well-known fact that Christianity is a monotheistic religion
and to claim otherwise either shows extreme reaching or extreme
ignorance of the actual doctrine.

If you are taken aback by the fact that YHVH is represented as male,
at least you can make a note of the fact that YHVH is also frequently
referred to as ineffable, which is the case with no other male in the bible.

> It is a well-known fact that Christianity is a monotheistic religion
> and to claim otherwise either shows extreme reaching or extreme
> ignorance of the actual doctrine.

To further underline this fact, I give you the following:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and
who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

"I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God."
(Isaiah 44:6)

> G-d made man in his own image. What does that tell you?
> Alice.

***That tells me that you don't understand what an "image" is.

+++And that sir tells me that you are attempting to pick a fight with me. Excellent.

Image: a person or thing very much like another; copy; counterpart; likeness.
The visual impression of somethin gprodiced by reflection from a mirror.
refraction through a lens etc.

Ever read of Da'at ? :)

Be nice no reason to get pissy, I'm just a girl.

***An image is a representation of a form.

+++ Yes or a reflection which is my preference.

***God made man within his own form.

+++ No. G-d made man in his own Image.

***This is not to say that "man" is a little miniature of God.

+++ No, it means that man is G-d.

(Introduce Satanism here.)

I brush my long brown silky hair in the mirror, is the hair I see in the mirror
not my own?

Alice

Did Hitler hang out with Mr. Spare?

FDOGC?

No. SPARE.

Abso-fucking-lutely. They had the same moustache for Christ's sakes! :)

>> You're full of shit.

Am I?

> Definitely.

Well...