"If it's provable we can kill it."
Or, why I love my Demon so
Published on January 27, 2006 By EmperorofIceCream In Misc
How many different sorts of suffering are there in the world? And how many of them are innocent? I've no doubt there are many, and that asking how many forms can be described as innocent is akin to asking how many angels can dance on the point of a pin - not head, as is usually stated. A mathematical answer has been worked out (Link) but mathematics has no soul and can't be thought of theologically.

So be damned to it.

Participatory, sacrificial pain interests me. And the best, the most perfect, example of it is the suffering of Jesus Christ. But think about it. What does the story of the death of Christ tell us about God (as God appears in the Christian version). Mostly, it tells us that God is a mean motherfucker who'll torture his kid to death to prove a point. And yes, I can hear you saying "But the resurrection, the resurrection proves that God is really, really nice after all."

Except that Jesus continues to suffer even after his resurrection. After all, he was the Living Word, according to the Gospel of John, through whom all physical reality was made and in whom it subsists. Creation however longs for its redemption from corruption, it suffers the corruption that overtook the world when Adam fell and it suffers continually the redemptive agony of Christ (because Christ's redemption of the physical world has not yet manifested and so is ongoing).

As many a zealous Christian will tell you, every sin recrucifies Christ and every partcipatory act of innocent suffering (such as an animal under a vivesectionist's knife, or the random victim of violence, every child that starves to death, is tortured to death), is balm to his wounds and a step toward the coming Kingdom of God on earth.

Sure God's a nice guy. He made his kid the foundation of the universe, the substance of the universe - and then infected him with cancer. Then he made the boy a physical being and tortured him to death. And then resurrected him in a perfect imperishable body (a body made perfect for the reception of pain), a body that is still the substance of the universe, still cancerous, still suffering and constantly, endlessly crucified. Sure God's a nice guy. Sure.

There's another way of looking at it, of course. It doesn't involve Jesus at all - except as one more poor sod no different from the rest of us, apart from being more than usually afflicted by delusions of understanding (and in possessing the happy and useful knack of turning water into wine).

No, we're all God's kids in this version, just as we're all orphans, because this God has no more interest in us personally than any other artist does in the welfare or otherwise of his creations. Suffering is a color on the canvas, a thread in the tapestry, a note in the music. If the suffering of individuals has meaning it's only as part of some incomprehensible exercise in creation. And since such meaning is incomprehensible - then for us it doesn't exist at all. Certainly it doesn't exist in any sense from which we might draw comfort, or strength, or hope. In fact, to know that there is meaning, meaning that assuages, that satisfies, that redeems, but that we'll never know because we were made too dumb to understand it, could only ever be a source of despair. Better, by far, to believe that there is no such meaning - which is the root of all atheism, and the motivating terror behind deism, agnosticism, the cult of nature and the environment, and all such spineless, cowardly responses to any question involving God and suffering.

And any question that considers God and the world must involve suffering because there's just so much of it. Maybe not in your life, right now (though I'll guarantee almost all of you have suffered in the past and will again in the future) but in someone's life, somewhere. Go look at your TV. If you lick the screen you'll be able to taste the misery, like bitter honey, sweet in the mouth but foul in the belly....

Not God the child-torturer, the tormentor of a physical/spiritual universe, then, but God the Artist. Not indifferent to suffering but creating it according to an aesthetic impulse It alone understands. Not a nice guy, no, but not a bad guy either. In fact, not any kind of guy - an It that makes things, and prefers red above every other color.

Of course, there's another way of looking at things.

In this universe there's what you like, and there's what you haven't had enough of - but it has no moral dimension At least, not if morality is understood in terms of 'being good' (or 'saved', or 'justified by the blood of the Lamb') and equals going to heaven, while 'being bad' (whether that means extra-marital sex, or drugs, or whatever) equals going to hell. It has morality when 'morality' is understood as teleology - the fullest possible development of the individual in every way, and where the seeking of such development is virtue and refusing it is vice.

Not sin, vice. Because the God of this universe has no morality, no aesthetic, only Will. Will, Power, Knowledge. Perhaps it knows love - but if so it's love is as incomprehensible as its Will, and its loving attention is something best not aroused.

Unless, of course, you're prepared to look (the kind of look Burroughs meant when he called his best book 'The Naked Lunch', the look you give the meat on your fork when you see it as dead meat and not 'food') at what it is you like and what it is that you haven't had enough, and decide to pursue whatever you see with the implacable resolve to experience that thing to its most absolute extent.

That's the Universe I live in, now. I have a God, which has no name. I participate in its purposes without understanding them on the basis of desire and will, and having roused its loving attention I know I can't make it go back to sleep. Not that I'd want to: too much of horror and wonder has come into my life (though not yet to the full degree of what's been promised me) for me to do that.

If I suffer, I suffer because either I like what causes it or I haven't had enough of what causes it. I admit I'm my own worst enemy just as I admit I'm my own best friend. No one's coming to rescue me because the Universe and it's God are indifferent to whether I live or die - except insofar as I make myself most fully myself, and then only because in doing so I become, perfectly, one more fragment that makes up the perfection of the whole. And the whole is necessarily perfect, simply in virtue of being that thing that was willed by God. And as every good Christian (or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew) will tell you, the will of God is perfect.

Why is this a religion of devils? Because love is not at its center, Will is, Desire is, Lust is - things not good nor bad in themselves but simply a part of me to be pursued and developed like any other part. And because, in me, Will, Desire, Lust - are all devilish in the objects to which they are directed.

Not so much as a conscious choice (just as I didn't choose to like vanilla ice cream above any other kind) but as a function of what I am - biologically, intellectually, spiritually. My Christ, if I was interested in having one, would be a negative Christ, the mirror image of the christian Christ, a combination of Baldur and Loki, a trickster who instead of dying for my sins died so that he could turn around and say "I died for you motherfucker. Now what are you going to do for me?" A God of exigent demands, and one who doesn't deal in rewards, or punishments - just in what we are, and what we want, and what we're prepared to do to get it.

But I have no interest in Christ anymore, not even in vilifying him, which was all that was left to me of my Christianity once I'd encountered the Angel in the sick greed of my lust, the Angel I serve with my flesh in rituals of sexual subjugation that I've only just begun to explore.

News Flash!! News Flash!!! News Flash!!!! Yes, people, the rumors are true!!!! Incubi and Succubbi really do exist!!!!!! And they make house calls!!!!

Like every good magickian I've traded everything I thought I was for the power that comes from knowing what I actually am (a moral monster and a theological lunatic). And it's in the converstion with the Angel that has grown from that realisation that I've begun the process that will lead to an unreason that, while it has lost the good of what it appeared to be formerly, retains the structure and appearance of what it was, and so still passes, among my friends and neighbours, for what they typically consider to be rationality. Like Mad King George I have discovered (or rediscovered) the power to seem.

In my religion madness and terror are the equivalent of love and good works, and salvation is not 'salvation from' but 'baptism into' a state of mind that while it's as exalted as any holy ecstasy, and as much an act of worship, is the antithesis of these things as they appear in the Christian story.

I'm a theological heretic, a post-christian Christian, in love with a Jesus of my own creation to precisely the degree that I'm able to murder him every day. Which is only to say that knowingly, in fulll complicity, and with the fullest awareness of the possibility of deception, I'm in love with the inevitability of my destruction.

Evil, be thou my good - vice be thou my virtue.

The only way I can imagine God now is as a blood-stained grin on the face of the Universe, lips parted a little, enough to show the crusted fangs behind them.

My religion is a religion of devils because it sees the necessity for a God who is the fullest expression of the reverse of the God most know in the forms of Islam, Judaism, Christianity. I am a disciple of the darkness that's at the heart of the light of God, and it's only a Devil who can see that darkness and appreciate its severe beauty. Not for nothing was Satan described as the most beautiful of all the first-born Sons of God.

It's the lips of the Angel (the Demon) I've come to know that have spoken these things to me. It's my virtue as a Magickian to understand that even though I believe everything I've learned to be true I also know it to be entirely false. The last thing is to realise that it doesn't matter. There's only what you want and what you're willing to pay for it. The more your willing to pay, the more you'll eventually have. And if you pay everything you can have everything - exactly what you want.

I want sexual terror without limit, suffered and inflicted, and an end to the World of Man - and I want to live long enough to see it burn.

Because a conversation is deceitful doesn't mean it isn't worth participating in and only an honest man will tell you beforehand that he's a liar, just as only a liar will tell you that he's honest. It's because my Demon (my Angel) is an honest liar and tells me that I will experience that terror without limit, will live to see the flames eat the world (all the while wearing that bloody grin, pale flesh gleaming and demanding in a darkness that's as much laughter and the presence of something else as it is the absence of light, as much treachery as it is satisfaction), it's because he speaks and tells me these things that I love him as I do.

Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jan 29, 2006
To ParaTed2k:
As far as the idea that He is still on the cross? That one I'll leave up to theologeons to tackle, but for me, I thought the whole point was that, the cross and the crypt are empty. Jesus wasn't on the cross when he appeared to Mary, nor when he appeared to the Apostles... Interesting article. Always interested to hear what others think
From Romans 8:
18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. Yes indeed. The whole thrust of your first response is simply this - that God must conform to what you think is just (hence the notion of balance, of which you make such a point). To whom does sin cause pain (this being the point at which you begin)? To God? If God is limitless, omnipotent, omniscient, and resides in eternal light beyond the reach of Man, if his thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways, then how is it that you can imply that 'sin' is a kind of 'pain' which our activities cause God? Balance, in the way you use the term, is to my mind of no meaning or importance to God. If God punishes 'sin' then it's because, for whatever reason, certain acts are designated as 'sinful' and for no other reason. Similarly, mercy is not part of some cosmic balance but the remission of sin by direct fiat, by the decision of God to remit sin for his own inscrutable purpose. The moment you admit that God is entirely alien and Other to humanity then you lose any purchase whatsoever you might have had by which you can judge the actions of God. The principle from which you start is this: that the actions of God in relation to sin and suffering, pain, mercy, death - are comprehensible within a framework dictated by purely human frames of reference This has the consequence that any conclusion you may come to that satisfies you is just that - a conclusion that you find satisfying, which has no merit beyond the confines of your own view of the universe. It was thinking of this kind, this realisation, that overturned whatever confidence I once had in the teachings of prophets and pastors, popes, vicars and priests. They are all thieves, thieves of the believer's privilege of concluding peace with God on his own terms, and I'd put them all against a wall and blow their brains out if I could, simply because the hubris of their position appalls me.
There is no reason to think that there can be perfection without balance.
Really. So not only do you establish conditions for the justice and mercy of God, you are also in the business of telling God how he is to administer the universe that he and not you created. I think it's this that most incenses me against the common-or-garden variety of Christian. The arrogance with which they assert that their particular shibboleth, their particular sacred cow (I am an eater of sacred cows, there's no sauce better for beef than the arrogance of those who believe they understand the world) is the sole correct means of viewing God's creation and his purposes in it. You'd do well to think of what God said to the friends of Job, after Job had been vindicated before their faces. You really would. "I am angry with you... because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." Let me explain things to you in ways that your teachers would not, in ways of which they would not approve. Let's suppose for a moment that the common Christian narrative of Christ's life and death is correct. He was born a man (setting aside for a moment any question of how God may appear in the world while being divorced from divinity). He lived and died, his death being a sacrifice for our sins. We are forced immediately (at least, I was so forced) to consider the above passage quoted from Romans, as well as that declaration found in the beginning of the Gospel of John - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him were all things made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." As I pointed out in the original article, in essence this means that God the Father afflicted God the Son, the point of mediation for God's creative impulse, the instrument by which creation came to be and by which it is maintained (since such creation is not a once-only intervention but a continuous process - unless you'd like to suppose that the universe is self-subsistent and independent of God, in which case any talk of sin and redemption becomes unmitigated nonsense) with a kind of cancer. The cancer of a perpetual disappointment, paid for by the perpetual crucifixion of the Son, since he alone is perpetually innocent and therefore a perpetual sacrifice before God for the failings of humanity. It does not matter that tomb and cross are alike both empty. If sin persists then sin was not done away with by Christ's sacrifice. If it was not done away with then it must constantly be paid for (or that balance you are so fond of would swing wildly against Man), and there is no one to pay for it but Christ. So that I am proved right in my contention that God, so far from being merciful, is a child-killing motherfucker who'd consign his kid to perpetual slaughter to prove a point.
on Jan 29, 2006
wow. this whole category has been on the wonk today.


Maybe its a God thing......Buwhahahahaha

OR demons in training....
on Jan 30, 2006
I'm not sure what's going on with the comment function here - but evidently JU is having a bad day...
on Jan 30, 2006
Emporer:

So not only do you establish conditions for the justice and mercy of God, you are also in the business of telling God how he is to administer the universe that he and not you created.


Not really. I don't establish conditions for the justice and mercy of God, I am merely commenting on my own understanding (such as it is) of what I have learned and experienced about the conditions that exist.

I don't even tell God how to administer the universe, I am merely sharing my opinion of why things happen, just as you shared yours.

I thought that was the point of the article. ;~D
on Jan 30, 2006
To ParaTed2k:

The point of the article is not to 'share' anything - that's simply a byproduct of writing here. The point is to explore something, to excavate its meaning for myself. Others watching is another byproduct of my writing here. As to your merely sharing your own opinion - well, I'll grant you your opinions are meager and therefore might be referred to as mere. But mere or not they are built on the foundation of arrogance shared by all common-or-garden Christians.
on Jan 30, 2006

However, we are taught that God is perfect and there is no perfection without balance.

*You* may have been taught that, but who are the *we*?  I can only assume that you are speaking of Christians.

With that, you first have to believe in the Christian god as *the* god.  Right there you have closed your mind to understanding the infinite.  Next, you have to believe that you can't understand god, and that people are flawed and have sin from birth (got to be baptized, right)?  If god is so perfect, why did he make us so flawed?  How could a baby be born with sin is "good" people aren't punished for the sin of others?

The more you think about Christianity, the more absurd it gets.  Believing in a made up Deity named Stan would probably make more sense to me....hmmm...maybe I should start the Church of Stan.  I probably could get some suckers to give me money.  Then I could be like the Pope and have people worship me.  I'll talk to Stan and everything for them so that they know when the rules change.  It'll be great!  Anyone want to start donating to the church of Stan?

on Jan 30, 2006
Thanks Karma, I've seen a lot of such conflicted insight from you lately. Speaking of closed minds, you easily write off a myriad of perspectives with the word "absurd", as if you are somehow more enlightened than most of the world. Then you start talking about people being close-minded?

How do you think you got more smart/wise than the rest of us? Luck? If you strain, you might be able to answer some of those questions for yourself. You MIGHT even be able to imagine someone being as open minded as you and still being able to believe what you scoff at. I'm open to many, many possibilities, some of which include things you would consider absurd.

No. You so easily brush off beliefs that people just as wise and just as smart as you have been able to settle on. Look back on history. Why do you think we remember most those who dismissed things like, oh, the Earth circling the Sun, a round Earth, being able to make flying machines, etc? Because there's little to brag about if you are right, and a great deal to scoff at if you are wrong.

Ideas that end up being truly absurd don't really need to be declared as such with the kind of vehemence you use. When I hear that kind of declaration it makes me think the person has to be overly harsh to make the point to themselves. Especially with things like God, etc., it's the ultimate close-mindedness to make declarations like the one you make. If there isn't a God, fine, where is the profit in insulting people who otherwise get along with you?

If there is a God, and if you are truly open minded you have to acknowledge the possibility, what are you profited by dismissing the concept? This is one of those circumstances where the only totally bizarre (absurd?) decision is that in an infinate universe something cannot be true.

If you really dislike closed minds, maybe you should open yours a bit.
on Jan 30, 2006

Thanks Karma, I've seen a lot of such insight from you lately. Speaking of closed-minds, you easily write off a myriad of perspectives with the word "absurd", as if you are somehow more enlightened than most of the world. How do you think you got more smart/wise than the rest of us? Luck? I'd like to know so that someday I might aspire to be close to your level.

Condescending arrogance gets no respect from me.  I said that the more you think of Christianity the more absurd it gets.  If you think I am the only one who feels that way, then you need to get out more.  Ever read the bible from a non-Christian viewpoint?

on Jan 30, 2006
"Ever read the bible from a non-Christian viewpoint?"


Absolutely. I wonder if you could read it FROM a Christian viewpoint?

If you think I am some literalist bible thumper then you don't know me very well. Condescending arrogance gets no respect from me, either, that's why I responded. Declaring yourself open minded and then ruling out other people's beliefs as absurd is, well...

As I said, people a lot smarter and wiser than me and you have been able to settle the conflicts you state within themselves and accept these beliefs. The fact that you don't do so doesn't make you any more open minded or smart. I'm personally sick of Christians being written off as suckers. Most of what you rely on today was invented and perfected by those suckers. Open YOUR mind and realize that what you dismiss as absurd might actually be true.

If it isn't, fine, you "win". What's your prize? If it is, then I doubt ruling out the possibility will be of any benefit to you.
on Jan 30, 2006
I think the problem is that people like Karma really think others settle on Christianity because they just aren't capable of rejecting it. As if we are unwilling or unable to consider any other possibilities; as if what they believe hadn't occured to us or we are unable to grasp it. How's that for condescending arrogance...

P.S. Karma: i'll add that I'm not just jumping on you for this one post. If I seem a bit touchy it is because I have read other such posts from you lately on other blogs.
on Jan 30, 2006

I think the problem is that people like Karma really think others settle on Christianity because they just aren't capable of rejecting it.

You sure make a lot of assumptions.  Since you claim that this is because you read my responses on other threads, did you miss the comments about truly trying to become Christian?  That I went to a Christian church, was open minded to the teachings and walked away with more questions than what the bible answered?  Do you honestly believe that I am as hypocritical as you make me out to be?  I have studied *many* religions, and Christianity is the one that makes the least sense to me.  However, I have met too many Christians who tell me that I am "wrong" for looking anywhere but the bible for answers.  I have been told that I am going to hell because I wasn't baptized and that I am committing sin by not following the "Christian" way of life.  That is absurd.  It's also absurd that the rules change.  Gee, you used to go to hell because you didn't wear gloves to church, now it's "OK" (yes, that is a petty example, but it's one that has always stuck with me).

Open YOUR mind and realize that what you dismiss as absurd might actually be true.

I have opened my mind to it.  I could say the same to you: open your mind and realize that what I think is absurd might actually be....absurd.  See, you call me "closed minded" but how is it any different than the way you are acting?  I say that I don't believe it and that I find it absurd.  You are telling me that I am wrong, and you somehow think that I am saying that Christians are "suckers".  I have never said that anyone is wrong.  I have never told anyone to quit believing in what they do.  Of course, I don't get the same toward me since I am not on the "Christian" side.

 

on Jan 30, 2006

f it isn't, fine, you "win". What's your prize? If it is, then I doubt ruling out the possibility will be of any benefit to you.

I'm OK with simply being dead when I die.  I don't need to believe in an after life.  I don't need a "reward" for being "good" while I'm on Earth.  I'm perfectly fine with being worm food when I die.  Would you be OK with that?  Could you go to sleep at night knowing that you may never wake up, and all there will be is nothing, as if you never existed at all?  I can.

And, I haven't ruled out anything.  If you have read my comments (as you have claimed) you will know that I have stated that I may never find the end of my path of enlightenment during my lifetime, and I am OK with that.  However, I know that Christianity is not the end of that path for me.  I'm not sure how much more "open" minded you expect a person to be.

on Jan 30, 2006
Frankly, I don't "know" anything. To me that is open minded. I get called a sucker by both sides, thanks. Once I "know", I'm probably not open to much else, so unless it's your church of Stan or L. Ron. Hubbard's, I'm probably not going to call much of anything absurd. When I do I usually just show my inability to comprehend it.

Your questions above were being asked a thousand years ago. Do you think people are just to dense to ask them, or maybe we all find answers that suit us within ourselves? It always amazes me that people now think that the problems they come up with concerning Christianity are somehow original. People have been asking the same questions since Christianity began, and still smarter people than me embrace it.

Yes, I've read your posts, and I think maybe you don't see the venom that spills out of them. I asked you what your prize is not because I thought you wouldn't be okay with just being dead. I asked because you seem to need desperately to declare the insufficiency of beliefs you've already rejected. If you have truly rejected them, one wonders why you bother with them at all.

Maybe I could see offering people an alternative along with the backhand, but instead you just call their beliefs absurd and deem them suckers. Sorry, but no, that doesn't seem open minded, it seems insecure. Open minded, to me, is accepting the limitations of our insight, and realizing that there is a possibility that even Stan might be the answer, and we just might be too limited and stupid to comprehend it.
on Jan 30, 2006
As if intelligence is a bad thing. Yet, religious people take offense when they're called stupid for believing. Go figure.

As an unbeliever, would you not take offense if someone called you stupid for not believing?

I believe, and while I don't consider myself to be a person of mega intelligence, I certainly don't consider myself to be stupid either. I do admit to being arrogant from time to time, as much as I hate that about myself. Pride is one of my biggest faults, and I try to squash it (or seek for the Holy Spirit to squash it) whenever possible. Yet it's circular. Just when I think I'm doing better about not being so prideful or arrogant... "Gee... I've really got a handle on this pride issue." Oops. See what I mean?

All that to say that I'm NOT perfect. I'm just me. Completely imperfect, choosing to trust in a perfect Creator. I don't pretend to have it all figured out, nor will I concede that I am naive and foolish for placing my faith in God. I try not to look down on others for their lack of faith, particularly since faith is a gift from God. Then again... there are those who will say I'm arrogant to presume to have been given a gift that others were not. I assure you that while it may appear that way, I don't intend for it to. I don't think I'm any better than anyone else... I'm the wretch the song talks about. I guess it's a parodox... just as the idea of a sovereign God is for some.
on Jan 30, 2006

People have been asking the same questions since Christianity began
 

So, can you point me to the answers?

 

Maybe I could see offering people an alternative along with the backhand, but instead you just call their beliefs absurd and deem them suckers.

I have provided alternatives, people just don't want to look at them.  I have suggested the over soul, I have also suggested "nothing".  There could be, in fact, nothing.  No god, no reason, just nothing.  I don't want nor need a prize for what I believe.  I don't need anyone to validate my beliefs.  I don't need to sit en mass with others and contemplate the meanings of a book.  *You* are the one who keeps using the term "suckers".  I have never used that term, nor do I think it.  I would appreciate it if you would not associate such false claims with what I say.

Yes, I've read your posts, and I think maybe you don't see the venom that spills out of them.

Hmmmm..is that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

Open minded, to me, is accepting the limitations of our insight, and realizing that there is a possibility that even Stan might be the answer, and we just might be too limited and stupid to comprehend it.

Then, I guess we agree on something:

If you have read my comments (as you have claimed) you will know that I have stated that I may never find the end of my path of enlightenment during my lifetime, and I am OK with that.

I have never said that Christianity is "wrong".  I have said that I find it absurd, and that it's not a stopping point in my path.  There is a difference.  You seem to be reading in your own thoughts into what I say.  I have never called anyone a "sucker", and I have never said that anyone's beliefs are "wrong".  However, I have had plenty of "venom" pointed at me (such as yourself) for saying that I don't believe in what "Christians" do. 

5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last