would you sell your soul to satan if you could?

[crossfire]

im not allowed to comment in a dir

It's a green one, and it's on topic, so go ahead.

 

[Pegg]

It's a green one, and it's on topic, so go ahead.

well,ok

i would simply answer by saying that we can serve money or God or other things... we sell ourselves all the time to one thing or another.

But the best thing we can sell ourselves to is to God.... reason being is that he is the life-giver and life-sustainer. Nothing else can give us life.

 

[crossfire]

well,ok

i would simply answer by saying that we can serve money or God or other things... we sell ourselves all the time to one thing or another.

What if we don't sell ourselves, but rather, take ownership of ourselves?

But the best thing we can sell ourselves to is to God

Self-control is a fruit of the spirit, no?

.... reason being is that he is the life-giver and life-sustainer. Nothing else can give us life.

Do you have to buy a gift?

 

[Pegg]

What if we don't sell ourselves, but rather, take ownership of ourselves?

unfortunately we live in a world where we will come under the dominion of someone or something. No human living can be truly independent ...the very nature of our world is a dependent one.

everything is dependent on something to survive....we are no different.

Self-control is a fruit of the spirit, no?

i dont think 'self-control' mean 'self-determination'

no one can be self determined.

Do you have to buy a gift?

when you are hungry, you 'work' to feed yourself. When you are thirsty, you have to do something to quench your thirst. When you get tired, your only option is to submit to sleep.

And if you want to live, you also have to do something to attain it.

 

[crossfire]

unfortunately we live in a world where we will come under the dominion of someone or something. No human living can be truly independent ...the very nature of our world is a dependent one.

everything is dependent on something to survive....we are no different.

I agree with you on interdependence, but I make a distinction between interdependence and the selling of beings (slavery)

i dont think 'self-control' mean 'self-determination'

no one can be self determined.

Then we were destined to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

when you are hungry, you 'work' to feed yourself. When you are thirsty, you have to do something to quench your thirst. When you get tired, your only option is to submit to sleep.

And if you want to live, you also have to do something to attain it.

That is not the same thing as receiving a gift from someone.

 

[Pegg]

I agree with you on interdependence, but I make a distinction between interdependence and the selling of beings (slavery)

its certainly a fine line between the two. We have to make choices, the choices we make will affect the outcome, and the outcome is going to keep us bound one way or another.

we can be bound to one thing or another, but either way we are going to be bound to something. Thats a form of slavery, yes?

Then we were destined to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

when i said no one can be self-determined, i meant that we cannot be completely independent. It probably wasnt the best choice of words there.

Adam and Eve had free will, they could choose to continue dependent on God, or they could choose to be dependent on the agent who misled them. Which ever way they chose, they would still be dependent on someone. That means self-determination does not lead to freedom... interdependence remains regardless of the choices we make. It just moves from one agent to another. EG, a person who chooses to become a drug user will become dependent on the drug they are using...they will become a slave of it.

That is not the same thing as receiving a gift from someone.

Some gifts are given as a a reward, some are given as an incentive, some are just given for the sake of giving.

But in all cases, it is up to the one giving it to give it. And that one determines 'why' the gift is given and to whom.

 

[crossfire]

its certainly a fine line between the two. We have to make choices, the choices we make will affect the outcome, and the outcome is going to keep us bound one way or another.

we can be bound to one thing or another, but either way we are going to be bound to something. Thats a form of slavery, yes?

Slavery to what? Your own ignorance or your own knowledge?

when i said no one can be self-determined, i meant that we cannot be completely independent. It probably wasnt the best choice of words there.

So you admit it not the same thing as being enslaved.

Adam and Eve had free will, they could choose to continue dependent on God, or they could choose to be dependent on the agent who misled them.

How can A & E dependent on either agent unless they need them to place the blame on for their own actions?

Which ever way they chose, they would still be dependent on someone.

Only if they choose to cling to the agent.

That means self-determination does not lead to freedom...

No, it shows that clinging does not lead to freedom, imo.

interdependence remains regardless of the choices we make.

Agreed.

It just moves from one agent to another.

You are stuck on clinging, imo.

EG, a person who chooses to become a drug user will become dependent on the drug they are using...they will become a slave of it.

Indeed, they cling to it.

Some gifts are given as a a reward, some are given as an incentive, some are just given for the sake of giving.

But in all cases, it is up to the one giving it to give it. And that one determines 'why' the gift is given and to whom.

Well, if this gift wasn't freely given, then please lead me to the lake of fire so I can return this so-called gift and put an ending to this farce.

If the godly thing to do is to give without expecting anything in return, this is not godly, and is therefore a farce.

 

[Iti oj]

As a Lucifer i have a collection of souls. So I am in the trade......

 

[Thrice Great]

So "wisdom through adversity" is learning from your "sins," and developing good judgment from it. aka, "Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
It's a nice thing that distress is impermanent. ("if you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" is impermanence or the ending of distress)

I suppose you could put it that way. Wisdom through Adversity can be understood in its etymology 'ha satan' the Judaic word for 'adversary'. Ha satan did not become Satan until later where Jewish sects / tribes particularly the Essenes, began referring to anyone not an Essene as ha satan. You were either 'with' them or 'against' them.

Philosophically Satan can be defined as: "a powerful and primordial archetype of man's psyche."

This archetype is the reflection of how we perceive ourselves in relation to what we call the "others". Satan is the negative definition of what we believe is human. He is a social and cultural phenomenon and as old as humanity itself. There has always and will always, be essentially two worldviews consisting of oppositions and they are "Us & Them".

Sumerian and Akkadian tablets concur this worldview from the earliest known writings, the ancient Egyptian word for an Egyptian meant "human", the Greek word for non-Greeks was "barbaroi". The Jewish Essenes called non-Essenes "ha satan" (adversary), Zoroastrianism set forth the dualistic "good" (what we believe in) and "evil" (what they believe in).

"A society does not simply discover its others, it fabricates them, by selecting, isolating, and emphasizing as aspect of another people's life, and making it symbolize their difference"

- William Scott Green (Professor of the history of religion - ancient Judaism, biblical studies, and the theory of religion).

So, who is this Satan?
He is who you are not!

But the best thing we can sell ourselves to is to God.... reason being is that he is the life-giver and life-sustainer. Nothing else can give us life.

The problem most Satanists will have with this is that there is no god to sell yourself to, we are our own god and therefore everything we do is either beneficial or maleficent to our spiritual growth.

Adam and Eve had free will, they could choose to continue dependent on God, or they could choose to be dependent on the agent who misled them. Which ever way they chose, they would still be dependent on someone. That means self-determination does not lead to freedom... interdependence remains regardless of the choices we make. It just moves from one agent to another. EG, a person who chooses to become a drug user will become dependent on the drug they are using...they will become a slave of it.

This simply is not true, aside that this is IMO allegory, it nevertheless brings up many good philosophical points.

Lucifer makes His debut in the Testaments as the Serpent in the Garden of Eden pointing out to Eve that God is a liar and she will not die on that day if she eats of the fruit of knowledge of good & evil, which she did and did not die.

The Serpent brings us the Truth and our Freedom from the Will of another (god), shows us the way to either be One with this controlling God or to be a God ourselves.

God's deal with Adam & Eve was far from a diplomatic one, when you give someone a choice where one contains severe consequences, as god did for Adam & Eve, that is no longer a choice, it is blackmail and thug mentality. Once again Lucifer (as he did in the Book of Job) shows god in his truest Light, that of a manipulative megalomaniac and L'enfant Terrible. :angel2:

 

[crossfire]

I suppose you could put it that way. Wisdom through Adversity can be understood in its etymology 'ha satan' the Judaic word for 'adversary'. Ha satan did not become Satan until later where Jewish sects / tribes particularly the Essenes, began referring to anyone not an Essene as ha satan. You were either 'with' them or 'against' them.

Philosophically Satan can be defined as: "a powerful and primordial archetype of man's psyche."

This archetype is the reflection of how we perceive ourselves in relation to what we call the "others". Satan is the negative definition of what we believe is human. He is a social and cultural phenomenon and as old as humanity itself. There has always and will always, be essentially two worldviews consisting of oppositions and they are "Us & Them".

Sumerian and Akkadian tablets concur this worldview from the earliest known writings, the ancient Egyptian word for an Egyptian meant "human", the Greek word for non-Greeks was "barbaroi". The Jewish Essenes called non-Essenes "ha satan" (adversary), Zoroastrianism set forth the dualistic "good" (what we believe in) and "evil" (what they believe in).


- William Scott Green (Professor of the history of religion - ancient Judaism, biblical studies, and the theory of religion).

So, who is this Satan?
He is who you are not!

Ha! So satan is sweeping generalization? Yes, I am fully relishing the irony of making a sweeping generalization about sweeping generalizations!}

 

[Adramelek]

Sell my soul to Satan? No. I would considering making a donation, but I already gave at the office.

 

[Orias]

what would you want?
or if you tried already, what did you ask for?
or if you already sold it, what did you get as opposed to what you wanted?

take this as a hypothetical question if anything.

Nope.

In the grand spectrum of things..."souls" aren't for "sale". The pool is already picked.

 

[kloth]

Nope.

In the grand spectrum of things..."souls" aren't for "sale". The pool is already picked.

the pool is already picked. where is this pool?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. Satan wouldn't want to "own" our souls, anyway. Such a thing would go against His work to liberate us and encourage us to "be as gods". For similar reasons, I also think dedication rites and pacts are unnecessary. The best way to serve Satan is to follow your own Will. The ability to do so was His prime Gift in the first place.

 

[kloth]

how do you know Satan wouldn't want to "own" our souls?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

how do you know Satan wouldn't want to "own" our souls?

That concept doesn't fit into the mythological or artistic conception of Him. It's nothing but popular Christian folklore. If you accept Him as the Serpent as the Garden of Eden, it makes no sense that He would want to "own" souls since He set us free in the first place.

 

[Orias]

the pool is already picked. where is this pool?

We're swimming in it.