The Devil and You | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Satanism
DefaultNamesake

File this under boredom.


I am Satan, the Devil. I am your worst enemy.
I am known by many names, but my Will is known by my deeds.

To presence evil is not for the faint of heart or the weak-willed.
None shall escape my fire.
You shall all burn from within.

This didn't compute 4 years ago and doesn't compute now... This has always struck me as ultimately a theistic statement when removed of its "struggle within" metaphor.  It carries that Dante's Inferno message of dualist implication. 

Naturally, this made me have an instant impression of some Divinity Graduate that thinks it's clever. Like, "Lets use satan to spread our religious bullshit." Granted that's my subjective interpretation full of baseless assumption...

But it doesn't capture a "dark essence" (the exciting fuzzy dark feeling) as much as it screams "JesusIsLord.com".

All the conspira-soup aside, it's a topic that might be of minimal interest.  Does this statement encapsulate adversity or the essence of presencing satan, or do you to see a dual use metaphor that can be copied and pasted with the words of a firebrand preacher? 
The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 25
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 25

When the site initially came online, it was in part reaction to the SIN exodus. To this day, the site remains the neat shot alternative to the froo-froo sweet shit. The tone of the intro message reflects that.


Many who purport to be of Satan have been found wanting. Real Satanic shit is as anathema to them as it would be to the preacher man. Hence, the tongue-in-cheek, "I am Satan, your worst enemy--can you handle the fire?" That message is a wink and nudge to them.


The metaphor of struggle within is just part of the puzzle, to me. The external struggle is interrelated to it. The internal adversary is but an internal manifestation and match to the external adversarial current. Personifying that external force isn't everyone's bag, but I dig it.

Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 25

Quote from DefaultNamesake

File this under boredom.


I am Satan, the Devil. I am your worst enemy.
I am known by many names, but my Will is known by my deeds.

To presence evil is not for the faint of heart or the weak-willed.
None shall escape my fire.
You shall all burn from within.

This didn't compute 4 years ago and doesn't compute now... This has always struck me as ultimately a theistic statement when removed of its "struggle within" metaphor.  It carries that Dante's Inferno message of dualist implication. 

Naturally, this made me have an instant impression of some Divinity Graduate that thinks it's clever. Like, "Lets use satan to spread our religious bullshit." Granted that's my subjective interpretation full of baseless assumption...

But it doesn't capture a "dark essence" (the exciting fuzzy dark feeling) as much as it screams "JesusIsLord.com".

All the conspira-soup aside, it's a topic that might be of minimal interest.  Does this statement encapsulate adversity or the essence of presencing satan, or do you to see a dual use metaphor that can be copied and pasted with the words of a firebrand preacher? 
It seems pretty self evident to me. If you see theistic connotations, it's probably of your own devise. Consider it an ink blot test.
DefaultNamesake
Well, it's not the first time subjectivity failed my comprehension of metaphor.  Chalk it up to a perpetual need to have liars, deceptors, and adversaries...

So I guess it is sort of right...

If my metaphorical devil is assuming disingenuity and resentment over an ongoing deliberate withholding of information, anyway. 

Rorschach test indeed.


The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 25
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 26
Presence requires willingness.  What ever line drawn in the sand, if you cowl away and refuse to step over that line, you're not my kind.  It's just that simple.  All the fire & brimstone preacher rhetoric shouldn't even be a consideration as a deterrent, nor the consequences.  In order to obtain gnosis, you get injured.  Having been injured and incurred scars, you walk over even more lines, vs. shy away from them.  It just takes a hell of lot more to actually do you harm.  Anything can be normalized, including all that taboo shit people are afraid of.  Thing is, when you enter into a realm of NOMOS, you tend to walk it back and there you find equilibrium.


Even the VOID can be NOMOS.

DefaultNamesake

Quote from SIN_JONES Presence requires willingness.  What ever line drawn in the sand, if you cowl away and refuse to step over that line, you're not my kind.  It's just that simple.  All the fire & brimstone preacher rhetoric shouldn't even be a consideration as a deterrent, nor the consequences.  In order to obtain gnosis, you get injured.  Having been injured and incurred scars, you walk over even more lines, vs. shy away from them.  It just takes a hell of lot more to actually do you harm.  Anything can be normalized, including all that taboo shit people are afraid of.  Thing is, when you enter into a realm of NOMOS, you tend to walk it back and there you find equilibrium.


Even the VOID can be NOMOS.

Let's go with that because it brings up another perplexing question. Where is the line of limitation drawn if not between you and another person's opinion? 

The thing I'm hung up on is core transgression vs. core transcension... The former should take precedence over the latter, especially if the line is artificially drawn.  

So wouldn't the "presence of Satan" be more in line with refusing to cross arbitrary lines in place of some internal abyss crossing self improvement? Especially if perscribed, and especially if that "trusts" anothers description.


Who establishes lines of limitation for one to cross, what is that is reference to, and why would you define your gnosis based upon thresholds established by others? 


*Late edit* - This being for the name reason I find "satanic initiations" so oxymoronic.


The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 26
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 26
"Let's go with that because it brings up another perplexing question. Where is the line of limitation drawn if not between you and another person's opinion? "

Experience.

"Who establishes lines of limitation for one to cross, what is that is reference to, and why would you define your gnosis based upon thresholds established by others? "

You do.  Gnosis.

This isn't difficult stuff.
Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 26

Quote from DefaultNamesake.
1-Let's go with that because it brings up another perplexing question. Where is the line of limitation drawn if not between you and another person's opinion? 

2- The thing I'm hung up on is core transgression vs. core transcension... The former should take precedence over the latter, especially if the line is artificially drawn.  

3- So wouldn't the "presence of Satan" be more in line with refusing to cross arbitrary lines in place of some internal abyss crossing self improvement? Especially if perscribed, and especially if that "trusts" anothers description.


4- Who establishes lines of limitation for one to cross, what is that is reference to, and why would you define your gnosis based upon thresholds established by others? 


*Late edit* - This being for the name reason I find "satanic initiations" so oxymoronic.


1) Limitation is something to push back, until such a time as you choose to stop. Most people tend to start at 'other peoples opinions' (read - the party line) and go from there.


2) To transcend limitation one must first transgress limitation. there really is no other way I can see that isn't just mental masturbation.


3)Satan is found in the process of transgression to transcendence. It is as JK likes to say, the adversarial current. The father of destruction and change.


4)Thresholds can only ever be your own. Where other people place theirs is irrelevant.  Where the swords tend to cross is most people carry externally installed thresholds, IE they are agents of nomos.



DefaultNamesake
These things we are in agreement on , but this is mental masturbation.

Call this another line of the Satanic Conundrum:

For example: some bitch decides to do something for you, even sets it up on grounds of forced consciousness expansion... Going so far as to say, "If you overcome yourself, there will be treats."

Bitch then says your limitation is your own mistrust and paranoia. Granted, this is totally a fear based limitation (fear of being rejected/tricked), but what takes precedence.

Do you:

A: Overcome limitation to the approval of said bitch

B. Stagnate against growth out of defiance.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 26
Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 26
Punch said bitch in the jaw or worse, take the treats from his unconscious body, and walk away knowing you made your own karma that day.
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 26
Quote from DefaultNamesake
Call this another line of the Satanic Conundrum:
...
Bitch then says your limitation is your own mistrust and paranoia. ...
B. Stagnate against growth out of defiance.

...?


Did you seriously just set up an entire scenario based on the rather flimsy premise that what someone else says must be the case? How is refusing to succumb to a rather transparent attempt at manipulation "stagnating against growth"?

dimitri
dimitri Oct 26
The text mirrors the sentiments from back then.
A literal exodus from a place people, more or less, saw as their online home.
A certain group-think and knee-jerk reaction.

The predication I made back then on how it wouldn't survive in 2 years notice was an indication of that.

People seem to have matured a bit now. Few loonies perhaps having some vague ideas or willing to prove their worth.
I give it a better chance now. But the heat may be crancked up a bit. It's still chilly.
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 27

Quote from DefaultNamesake These things we are in agreement on , but this is mental masturbation.
If that's all it is to you, then you've not been *doing* Satanism.  You've been trying to convince us you are.
DefaultNamesake

Quote from SIN_JONES
Quote from DefaultNamesake These things we are in agreement on , but this is mental masturbation.
If that's all it is to you, then you've not been *doing* Satanism.  You've been trying to convince us you are.
All I get is lame ass "response number 7"?


In your thousands upon thousands of posts can you estimate the number of times you've

played the "superficial identity card?" 


Also: Context.

 Quote from XiaoGui17
Quote from DefaultNamesake
Call this another line of the Satanic Conundrum:
...
Bitch then says your limitation is your own mistrust and paranoia. ...
B. Stagnate against growth out of defiance.

...?


Did you seriously just set up an entire scenario based on the rather flimsy premise that what someone else says must be the case? How is refusing to succumb to a rather transparent attempt at manipulation "stagnating against growth"?

Yes I did. 


The point was to ask where the line on the sand is drawn...  I am of the opinion it' ALWAYS what others say or do that triggers a core response...


until then I'm fine sucking at hypotheticals.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 27
Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 27

Quote from DefaultNamesake
Quote from SIN_JONES
Quote from DefaultNamesake These things we are in agreement on , but this is mental masturbation.
If that's all it is to you, then you've not been *doing* Satanism.  You've been trying to convince us you are.
All I get is lame ass "response number 7"?


In your thousands upon thousands of posts can you estimate the number of times you've

played the "superficial identity card?" 


Also: Context.

 Quote from XiaoGui17
Quote from DefaultNamesake
Call this another line of the Satanic Conundrum:
...
Bitch then says your limitation is your own mistrust and paranoia. ...
B. Stagnate against growth out of defiance.

...?


Did you seriously just set up an entire scenario based on the rather flimsy premise that what someone else says must be the case? How is refusing to succumb to a rather transparent attempt at manipulation "stagnating against growth"?

Yes I did. 


The point was to ask where the line on the sand is drawn...  I am of the opinion it' ALWAYS what others say or do that triggers a core response...


until then I'm fine sucking at hypotheticals.

What others do is beside the point. How you respond or act, if at all, is on you.



DefaultNamesake
Well, I obviously don't get shit... Because here I thought the core of the LHP was "Vamachara",  which of course is always in reference to some  orthodoxy, or actions of an exoteric current.


The difference between having some zen buddhist self control/"above it all" response vs. a fight til death in the name of self.

Consistency is not the forte of this concept. This will be my brand then: Oppositional Defiant Disorder Satanism.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 27
Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 27

Quote from DefaultNamesake Well, I obviously don't get shit... Because here I thought the core of the LHP was "Vamachara",  which of course is always in reference to some  orthodoxy, or actions of an exoteric current.


The difference between having some zen buddhist self control/"above it all" response vs. a fight til death in the name of self.

Consistency is not the forte of this concept. This will be my brand then: Oppositional Defiant Disorder Satanism.

The external projection of what it is, how it looks outwardly, is just a byproduct of the work. Trying to ape the external appearance without getting there organically is just acting.


Limits are only limits if they are YOUR limits, which is the core point of this thing.

DefaultNamesake
Quote from Dan_Dread The external projection of what it is, how it looks outwardly, is just a byproduct of the work. Trying to ape the external appearance without getting there organically is just acting.


Limits are only limits if they are YOUR limits, which is the core point of this thing.

It's that organic shit I am after, what cause one to "work".  Granted it's not the same line for everyone, but isn't THAT (those individual lines) usually reference to some sort of external catalyst that pushes the internal and custom rebellion... which leads to whatever you get out of it.  Personal or nomian things cause the line to be drawn...

I just don't buy that refinement through adversity has nothing to do with the adversity at the outset.

 
 Like right now im refining my approach through a continuous string of facepalms...  

Maybe some bitch needs to draw me a picture afterall.
  


The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 27
Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 27
Much of what constitutes adversity is fed by perspective.  Sure there are examples that are pretty universal to everyone (like say, getting attacked or robbed) but there are potential counter examples even there.(getting attacked or robbed on purpose).


It's the perspective that can change. Becoming the devil is part and parcel to controlling him.

DefaultNamesake
It's the perspective that can change. Becoming the devil is part and parcel to controlling him.

There's no "becoming" Satan though is there?  Also, I don't buy that... The reaction is natural and doesn't become bad or good until the consequences.  So why try to control one self before one has to?  In the name of "Autonomy"? 


Maybe I'm too reactive, but the last thing I'm capable of in that state is self control or compromise.

In a strange irony, one of my catalysts is hearing statements like:

Becoming the devil is part and parcel to controlling him

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 27
Pages: 1 2 3 »

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.