User blogs

How you have fallen from heaven,

morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,

you who once laid low the nations!

Seems legit...

Lucifer fell to become the earliest considered form of Satan. Satan, by nature, opposes. You oppose because Satan calls within you, but can't perceive what it is. So you are driven to label your newfound ways in order to feel recognized. Excuse my boldness, but are you recognizing yourself?

"Check yourself before you wreck yourself." 

(and this one isn't even the bible, this one's on Ice Cube folks)

For example, why should we engage in Battle for the sake of some "national ruler's" whim? Then again...why engage in a personal one for the sake of semantics, towards having a personal definition recognized?

A good thought to hold is that which does not lock one's mind around a concept, but around the interaction of several (when they are concisely structured that is). 

Another one, is that one will only voice a fraction of what she or he intends and her or his listener will only perceive a fraction of what is voiced. So wrapping a discussion around different meanings of the same word might get chaotic, fellow opposers. How bigger a difference a sentence can make when it starts with "IMO (...)" or "To me, (...)"...

When one finds his own self among the ensuing chaos of endless interpretations of an endless number of books, long-dead prophets/madmen and sects, it is vital to hold on to their (dis)belief but also to absorb from that of others. Even if the intention is not to adapt anything within one's view, one can see, feel, touch some other collective (or not so much) thoughts.

But why do it then?

IMO the key is to use all the data one gathers from their surroundings to know exactly what did the other NOT understand of what one said. Patterns start forming like clouds afterwards, allowing mind and senses to awaken to what might be hindering one's own progress without knowing. 

And here is where faith comes into play. To evolve after enlightenment one must often take risks. When a solution is finally put together to a certain problem there are still unforeseen or even unpreddictable consequences to take into consideration. This is because one's actions will always only be that: ONE's actions (against those of many).

So there are always those parts of a certain outcome you can control, and some which you just can't. Faith will play its part if one is confident about their own capabilities and ways of resolving a problem AND if they are confident about what the environment and context might bring unto the outcome, or simply one of the two.

How can one go against what "faith" is if that implies having some twisted form of it combined with sheer stubbornness fuel their actions?

And how can the raw concept of faith (regardless of what it is towards) NOT be dissociated with that of any pseudo-anthropomorphic design of omniscience?

If not, how can one tell himself theist or not, considering that some form of faith will always be present?

and speaking of forms of...what in Hell's pyres is, in fact, faith?

Another good thought to hold, maybe I should stop writing under a full moon...