Demons: Beneficial Or Not?, The thread to end all disputes Options

HOLD UP

acid 09
err... wait.... SUCCUBUS! RUN!!!!

it could very well be Succubus.
If this the case (and not a sexual oriented dream) stay away from it. Its like a venus fly trap waiting for its next victom.

"It's a good thing!"
"It's a bad thing!"
"It's a lover!"
"It's a parasite!"
"It's a succubus!"

You know what? It these petty arguments that just piss me off.
(IMG:http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/3c/RAAAAGE.png)

"FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-"

The Synopsis:
Do Demons hate us, or love us? (or are they neutral?)

The traditionalists say that demons are malefactors, but the followers of the left-hand path say that they are benefactors. The neutralists say that they are akin to the handling of Nuclear energy: Beneficient if the science is known.

Argument - Nature of the Beast:
But lately, it always seems to boil down to the argument as to whether Demons are inherently benevolent, or inherently malevolent, or for all we know, they have their own agenda and are as whimsical as we humans if not more.

-Ceremonial Argument
Malevolent. These are beings that represent forces of the mundane, material, and the forces of addiction. They thrive off of suffering, and do not care about those who they make suffer for their own gain. They represent the forces of sin (however this is defined), and stand against the grand-ultimate "I AM". They stand for illusions, trickery, and lies.

They never give you what you want, and always leave you wanting more, never giving full-on contentment.

-LHP Argument
Benevolent. These are beings that were demonized by our petty mortal perceptions. From our experiences, they help us get what we want to be happy.

We get power, they get respect. It's give and take, done in a manner which is befitting of human beings, given that this is the best we can do.

Argument - Interaction:
Then, it moves onto the subject on how to encounter one of these beings in the proper manner. "

-Ceremonial argument
Set up by ceremonial magicians, the traditionalists say, "You have to use coercion because of all they know."

Rebuttal: That is the same argument used by white supremacists about blacks, saying, "You must treat them harshly and like animals because primitive impulses and crime is all they know."

Counter-rebuttal: But history shows that Demons have such behaviors, agendas, and motives

Retro-counter-rebuttal: How do you know that it is Demons that have such behaviors and not other entities that wish to frame others? The idea and urge to frame another for your actions as a scapegoat is the true evil act. What's more, you arbitrarily label any malificent spirit as "Demon," when in the LHP experience, "Demons" work for the benefit of humankind when asked.

What's more, who wouldn't act that way if treated with constant coercion?

-LHP Argument
Treat them with respect, and you will be treated as such back. Reciprocation is big, because many times, Demons (or preferred, Daemons) help in matters of retribution and vindication. On this basis, it is fair to say, that respect comes as the prime factor.

All this is based on a pact of trust established, noted, and expressed through the magicians willful conjuration of the spirit in question. If the magician did not respect this entity, why bother calling at all? On top of that, if the magician was not respectable, what entity of power, mortal or otherwise, would even obey or honor a call like that to such a person?

Rebuttal: Never go in without protection, lest you choose to make a decision stupidly.

Counter-Rebuttal: Honesty, Trust, and Respect is what protects the integrity of the parties involved, not some ordered, mechanical procedure to invoke some authority from a celestial bureaucracy.

Retro-counter-rebuttal: It is the authority of this system, by invoking the name of the grand-ultimate, the "I AM," that all things are compelled to obey. This gives the magician full discretion to use his power, and the choice to use it responsibly.


Added note: An interesting observation I have seen about these arguments, is how close they resemble the egregores of "Conservatives" vs "Liberals" on our Earth.

The Ceremonialist ideal seems to resemble the "Conservatives" more in the attitudes, based on the shared priorities of Defense, Authority, Order, and Gain.

The LHP ideal seems to resemble more "Liberal" ideals, such as personal freedom unfettered by the interference of others and their preferences, trust in the powers that they interact with for help on the basis that things are meant to work naturally for a common beneficience, and complete acceptance and adherence to the self as a means for the pursuit of happiness.

"Conservatives" seem to have a history of coersion in their methods for their gain, while "Liberals" tend to care more for the other party in question, in hopes that the reciprocation may be fair, or even greater, based on favorable standings.

CONCLUSION:

"Shadow vs Vorlon argument"

Sometimes it is sensible to destroy or overthrow a system that does not work, and there are times where it is necessary to follow the rules precisely, both for the betterment of ourselves, those around us, and our world as a whole.

Neither are correct or wrong: They both simply -are-, and have different agendas. This must be acknowledged.

As above, so below: We have corrupt people and we have just people on both sides of the spectrum. There are benevolent and malevolent spirits on both sides of the spectrum.

It seems to be more or less about preference and affinity towards the more "Orthodox" energies of the universe or, in contrast, the "Unorthodox."

With all these dualities and dialectics, I am very tempted to say "screw it" and go Taoist.
------

Now, the real question is, what ARE their agendas, anyway?

Without bias, without prejudgments, without taking fear, hatred, or other emotions into play, using only our higher human reasoning of which we as human beings can pride ourselves on, despite it's limited function, use, and ability, make some inferences as to the Agendas of the following classifications of spirits:

-Judeo-christian God and his angels
-Daemons of the Goetia
-The various pantheons, subdivided by their cultures
-Chthonic Proto-titans and demiurgic forces

I wish to know this, so that I can make the voluntary, willful, fully-informed choice to go with, align with, and work with whomever I please.

The stage is set. The arguments and observations layed down.

(IMG:http://www.gameaxis.com/img/blog/65/Image/fight.JPG)

"It's a good thing!"
"It's a bad thing!"
"It's a lover!"
"It's a parasite!"
"It's a succubus!"

You know what? It these petty arguments that just piss me off.

You should watch Krogmandune and the flamming sword of fire...

If it harms you - it's probably not a good thing to be around

Simple enough argument right there.

As far as "demons" go I think people should examine the very nature of their existance. Is there actually a race of beings that call themselves "Daimons" that live on some alternate planes of existance? It depends who you ask. Are they transmutable or immutable beings? If they are immutable from the nature of their reality they have no ability to cross the boundry of their realm. If that is the case then it doesn't matter what you or I think because they are apart from us and cannot interfere. If they are a transmutable race of powerful beings - why not pop up in the white house and give Mr. Obama a visit - or do they just like to be as covert as possible?

From my core beliefs the scientist in me finds it hard to believe in demons, angels, fairies pixies and unicorns - at least on our level of existance. If these entities were as real as the key board I am typing on, then why haven't we found even evidence of such beings? On an other level from my occult background I do believe there is more to the nature of this reality than what we just see in front of us. I have no reason to not believe in the possibility of endless realms covering a spectrum of alternate realities with infanite possibilities. So who's to say that somewhere out there, there isn't some race of "Daimons" who've figured out how to travel other realms and interact with other beings on those realms - like sliders!

The power of intelligence enables us to create and not just create like a bee makes a hive but beyond instict and through higher imagination. Therefore thought itself is the essence of creation, thus demonstrating a cosmic force that created all we know. Of course humans did not create the universe. But if we were indeed created in the likeness of a divine force, at least in that we too can create then our very thoughts have power. The power of thought can create archtypes or personifications of natural or super natural forces - including demons. The problem with this theory is that with nearly 7 billion minds each puring their own thoughts, what power does pure thought really have? I mean a person thinks of a pink golf ball does another person on the other side of the planet think the same thing? Or by simply typing "pink golf ball" do I contain that image only to those who read this section?

Regardless of the truth of reality, which we could argue endlessly about, there is denotation and conotation. Denotation is the actual definition of something. Conotation is the definition of something ascribed within a given context. For example "good" vs "evil". Some people feel that killing killers is "good" whereas some think it is "evil". And some people who think it is "evil" would want revenge if someone close to them was brutally murdered. Within that context, those who think killing killers is evil reach a point where they find a way to justify killing. So in that sense, what is good or evil? Maybe good just benefits only me and evil only benefits you - within the context of my perception and visa versa within the context of your perception. My point is that good and evil are not forces of nature, just ascribed value within a given context. Good and evil exist as nothing more.

So where am I going with this? Perception is everything. The way we percieve the world around us builds how we understand the nature of reality and allows us to exist and even transcend it. But the way we percieve things varies from one person to the next. No two people percieve the same thing and nobody at all can percieve everything at once. Case in point - How does a blind man describe the color purple? Or how does a deaf man describe a symphony? They can speculate about it. They can share the same thoughts that someone else tells them, but they themselves will never get a fully personal grasp due to their handy caps. Likewise, you and I, as relatively healthy people with no major disabilities (I assume) cannot describe wave lengths of sound that go beyond our ability to hear except to say they are really loud or really quiet. We cannot explain the apperance of gamma radiation beyond the way we see it in a mass spectrameter or otherwise described by physicist. Therefore every human is inveriably handy capped in that even though they can think and imagine they never really grasp the whole picture. Since no two think exactly alike or percieve things exactly the same way - nothing is true and everything is permissible.

This takes me to thought forms and magickal contructs, fortunately I don't need to say much because bym already got to it. I will say that people can create their own thought forms. From my perception the archetypal "demon" represents an unpleasent and nasty thought form or spirit. One that cause fear, anxiety, anger, saddness and suffering. So we can toss that into the "evil" catagory. Now going by my own logic "evil" doesn't really mean "evil" because "evil" doesn't exist. Its merely an expression of value. Thus a demon that may be percieved as evil may really be good within the right given context. And visa versa as well. The same is true for any manner of other entities - even guardian angels (the opitomy of "good").

This brings me to my bottom line...

Screw your arguments because they don't really mean anything any way! And what they mean to me or you, means something different to someone else. Within the right given context what is good can be evil and what is evil can be good. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evil2.gif)