Norwich Independent Spiritual Congregation

One of my biggest personal challenges has been avoiding toxic romantic relationships. What do I mean by a toxic relationship? Well the following link has a good basic description of what a toxic relationship is: Don’t Keep it Bottled Up

In the above article Dr. Glass answers the question: what makes a toxic person tick?
She says:

“They’re people whose feelings of insecurity and inadequacy make them jealous, envious and uncaring, so they end up sabotaging your projects, your relationships, your happiness-even your soul journey!”

This about sums it up for the last two significant romantic relationships I have been in. I have a friend at work who I spoke with about this, she seems to really have a great time in life and is a very self actualized person. Her thoughts on the subject is that she simply keeps a distance between herself and people who aggravate her. Good advice so it would seem.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Glass at “Toxic Relationships and How to Handle Them”

Dr. Brewer: A toxic relationship is one in which you are feeling harmed either emotionally or physically.

David: What is it that causes us to get involved in toxic relationships?

Dr. Brewer: There are many reasons why we choose toxic relationships. We may have grown up in a toxic household, we may have been taught that we are not deserving of happiness, or we may have learned to take responsibility for others. One of the most important things to remember about being in a toxic relationship, is that you do have choices and you can get out!

David: Can you give us some examples of a toxic relationship?

Dr. Brewer: Wow! That’s a big question! But here it goes.

A toxic relationship is one in which you are chronically tired, angry, or frightened. A relationship in which you worry about a safe time to talk to your partner. A relationship in which you do not have the “right” to express yourself. In short, a relationship that is abusive in any way, may be a toxic relationship.

David: Many get involved in these types of relationships and find it difficult to break away. What is it inside ourselves that keeps us from being able to do that?

Dr. Brewer: Often, we stay in relationships because we do not understand that we have rights and options. Low self-esteem can be a factor in remaining, as well as depression, fear of being alone, or threats from the hurtful partner. Sometimes, people stay because the toxic relationship so much mirrors their lives as children, that they truly may not have a sense that it is a toxic relationship and that life can be better.

David: What is it that makes a toxic person tick? What motivates that person to hurt others?

Dr. Brewer: Low self-esteem. Although low self-esteem can be a very complex experience, the bottom line is that the person does not have a good and clear sense of themselves, and so it is almost impossible, without clinical intervention, for that person to understand that there is a better, healthier way to be.

Part of why the toxic person hurts, in addition to having to do with their own low sense of self, is that fear of being out of control and the fear of what exposing the true self would mean.

The following excerpt is taken from a book called Dance of the Wounded Souls by Robert Burney:

This dance of Codependence is a dance of dysfunctional relationships - of relationships that do not work to meet our needs. That does not mean just romantic relationships, or family relationships, or even human relationships in general.
The fact that dysfunction exists in our romantic, family, and human relationships is a symptom of the dysfunction that exists in our relationship with life - with being human. It is a symptom of the dysfunction which exists in our relationships with ourselves as human beings.

And the dysfunction that exists in our relationship with ourselves is a symptom of Spiritual dis-ease, of not being in balance and harmony with the universe, of feeling disconnected from our Spiritual source.

That is why it is so important to enlarge our perspective. To look beyond the romantic relationship in which we are having problems. To look beyond the dysfunction that exists in our relationships with other people.

The more we enlarge our perspective, the closer we get to the cause instead of just dealing with the symptoms. For example, the more we look at the dysfunction in our relationship with ourselves as human beings the more we can understand the dysfunction in our romantic relationships.

According to Wikipedia:

A “codependent” is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A “codependent” is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have emotional, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The “codependent” party exhibits behaviour which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party’s condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.

As hard as I tried not to I found myself a dependent in my last relationship. I knew I was a good father, but I allowed myself to be convinced that I needed the help of another person to provide the female side of the mix for my children’s sake. In the end, the relationship between this person and my daughter grew quite toxic to the point that my daughter became increasingly depressed.

Related to the notion of Co-dependence is the concept of obsessive love:

Wikipedia has this to say about obsessive love:

Moore, Forward and Buck believe that rejection is the trigger of obsessive love - also known as love addiction or relationship addiction. They state four conditions to help identify it, namely, a painful and all-consuming preoccupation with a real or wished-for lover, an insatiable longing either to possess or be possessed by the target of their obsession, rejection by or physical and/or emotional unavailability of their target, and being driven to behave in self-defeating ways by this rejection or unavailability.

Two characteristics indicative of obsessive love are:

• Obsessive lovers believe that only the person they fixate on can make them feel happy and fulfilled.
• Persons close to the love-obsessed can also be greatly affected. Witnessing a friend or family member suffer from the disorder can be distressing.

The site goes on to characterize the phases of obsessive love:

The initial phase of ORP is characterized by an instantaneous and overwhelming attraction to another person. It is at this point the relationally dependent person becomes “hooked” on a romantic interest, usually resulting from the slightest bit of attention from the person they are attracted to.

Phase one: Attraction phase

• An instant attraction to romantic interest, usually occurring within the first few minutes of meeting.
• An immediate urge to rush into a relationship regardless of compatibility.
• Becoming “hooked on the look” of another, focusing on the person’s physical characteristics while ignoring personality differences.
• Unrealistic fantasies about a relationship with a love interest, assigning “magical” qualities to an object of affection.
• The beginnings of obsessive, controlling behaviors begin to manifest.

Phase two: Anxious phase
This phase in considered a relational turning point, which usually occurs after a commitment has been made between both parties. Sometimes however, the relationally dependent person will enter into this phase without the presence of a commitment. This happens when the afflicted person creates the illusion of intimacy, regardless of the other person’s true feelings. The second phase of ORP behaviors can include:

• Unfounded thoughts of infidelity on the part of a partner and demanding accountability for normal daily activities.
• An overwhelming fear of abandonment, including baseless thoughts of a partner walking out on the relationship in favor of another person.
• The need to constantly be in contact with a love interest via phone, email or in person.
• Strong feelings of mistrust begin to emerge, causing depression, resentment and relational tension.
• The continuation and escalation of obsessive, controlling behaviors.

Phase three: Obsessive phase
This particular phase represents the rapid escalation of this unhealthy attachment style. It is at this point that obsessive, controlling behaviors reach critical mass, ultimately overwhelming the RD person’s life. It is also at this point that the person being controlled begins to pull back and ultimately, severs the relationship. In short, Phase Three is characterized by a total loss of control on the part of the RD person, resulting from extreme anxiety. Usually, the following characteristics are apparent during the third phase of ORP.

• The onset of “tunnel vision,” meaning that the relationally dependent person cannot stop thinking about a love interest and required his or her constant attention.
• Neurotic, compulsive behaviors, including rapid telephone calls to love interest’s place of residence or workplace.
• Unfounded accusations of “cheating” due to extreme anxiety.
• “Drive-bys” around a love interest’s home or place of employment, with the goal of assuring that the person is at where “he or she is supposed to be.”
• Physical or electronic monitoring activities, following a love interest’s whereabouts throughout the course of a day to discover daily activities.
• Extreme control tactics, including questioning a love interest’s commitment to the relationship (guilt trips) with the goal of manipulating a love interest into providing more attention.

Phase four: Destructive phase
This is the final phase of Obsessive Relational Progression. It represents the destruction of the relationship, due to phase three behaviors, which have caused a love interest to understandably flee. For a variety of reasons, this is considered the most dangerous of the four phases, because the RD person suddenly plummets into a deep depression due to the collapse of the relationship. Here are some of the more common behaviors that are exhibited during phase four of ORP:

• Overwhelming feelings of depression (feeling “empty” inside).
• A sudden loss of self-esteem, due to the collapse of the relationship.
• Extreme feelings of self-blame and at times, self-hatred.
• Anger, rage and a desire to seek revenge against a love interest for breaking off the relationship.
• Denial that the relationship has ended and attempting to “win a loved one back” by making promises to “change”.
• The use of drugs, alcohol, food or sex to “medicate” the emotional pain.

I personally love to be touched and value the warm bond of intimate love. I feel as though it is healty to have this in my life. Sex is a critical part of our psychological well being. However, sex can also be used by a co-dependent as a lure to the love trap.

I can definately say from personal experience that my last relationship followed these phases almost like an instruction manual. Once you become involved with a co-dependent person they begin to knock out your defenses like an attack on Iraq. First they go after your friends so that you don’t have a sounding board to see outside of yourself (e.g. they remove your external voices of reason), then they play on guilt, fear or sense of duty to further reel you into their coils. They play you like a chess board.

One thing I have learned from this is that any relationship that cuts you off from your friends should throw up a big red flag and make you take a step back. One of my friends puts it this way. Sometimes the screwing youre getting isn’t worth the screwing they are giving you.

Sex = good. Love = good. Obsessive love = trouble.

So that’s my lesson learned for the month. Any comments?

A few months back I received an abstract from GetAbstract.com in my inbox entitled Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. Even though the message in my inbox was spam I read the abstract anyhow. Originally I had posted a link to this abstract thinking that it would be a win win situation and that the abstract being thus linked to would receive more ‘airtime” so to speak and would thus promote interest in Mr. Sowell’s book. However upon receiving a nasty letter from Arnhild Rasilier Vice President, Rights Director of getabstract.com, claiming that posting the link was an infringement of their copyright I realized that they were apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of their own abstract. So the link is gone now and the basic takeways quoted from the link have been removed from this site. Apparently Getabstract.com would prefer that Mr. Sowell’s work remain as obscure as possible.

The good thing about all of this is that the principle of like attracts like has shown itself here. Had I not received the corporate email I would not have revisited this posting. Had I not done that I would not have learned that Mr. Sowell is a darling child of neoconservative thinking. While his facts and fallacies book seeks to apply logic to economics which I thought was an interesting approach, he falls down on many points. One of his biggest fallacies is assuming that people in the United States have equal opportunity. Unfortunately that is not the case. Those with money to hire good lawyers will always prevail over those who do not. Until legal services, medical services, and access to government are made equally available to all, it will be a fallacy to think that opportunity will be equal. This is a point that is sorely overlooked by Mr. Sowell.

Well no matter, as I read through the abstract it I found the concepts therein quite compelling. This led to a discovery process that took place upon reading the abstract and that is what is important. The basic take away is that bad thinking habits lead to bad decisions. For example, when Getabstract.com treated their content like a finite resource and set about to hoard their content, they have accomplished a contrary purpose. By being greedy they have helped to condemn the content to obscurity, and rather than having a link showing the value of what they do, they have prompted the crafting of these paragraphs instead.

At any rate this book led me to thinking about many of the disagreements I have had in the past and identifies for me at least the root of many relationship problems I have encountered during my minstry. So I started Googling on “fallacy, reason, thought”. I wanted to see what else was out there on the topic.

The first stop on my Journey was an article entitled Seven fallacies of thought and reason by Jason Braithwaite PhD.

At the opening of his article he states that:

“There are many forms of logical fallacy, errors, and mistakes of reason. In addition to this many fallacies co-exist and network together in yet further complex combinations. The net consequence of this is a conviction and feeling of coherence in the views being held - a sense of things making sense! This feeling of ‘everything making sense’ in the absence of any evidence, logic or reason, is an illusion based in the collective impact of unstructured thought.The level of the delusion is often far greater than the sum of its underlying parts. The mistakes of though and reason listed here have been chosen and highlighted on the basis that they are the most common. Therefore, these errors are so prevalent, they have permeated and perverted the public’s perception of science the most.”

He goes on to detail these seven fallacies in reverse order:

(7) I am entitled to my opinion (used to support the truth of the opinion) The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that an individual’s entitlement to hold a viewpoint is no indication at all as to its validity or truth. In fact it is completely irrelevant.

(6) Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy.

This logical fallacy basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed to being towards the issues being discussed. The basic strategy is “attack the messenger not the message”.

(5) I’m offended! (A special case of the red-herring fallacy)

When a core belief is under threat from a good counter-argument, it is common for many to defend the core belief by stating “I’m offended”. The basis of this fallacy stems from the fact that often people become so attached to their beliefs that to question a core belief is to question them personally.

(4) Science cannot explain everything and does not have all the answers.

This argument is a lie wrapped up in truth. The truth is on the surface: it is true that Science does not have all the answers nor can it explain everything. But keep in mind that Science never claims to have all the answers - just a reliable and useful method for revealing them.

The lie inside the truth comes from the fact that Science has some built in limitations intended to keep it from answering specific questions concerning certain issues, but this limitation is used by some to gain leverage for claiming ‘truth’ by these other knowledge systems.

Just because Science cannot prove that Unicorns like chocolate ice cream better than cheesecake, doesn’t lend any credibility to the assertion that they do. The fact that Science can’t answer the question as to what dessert a Unicorn prefers doesn’t lend any credibility to someone else asserting an opinion either way or even to the idea that they eat dessert at all.

(3) Science is often wrong, and has been shown to be wrong before, therefore it could be wrong about this issue now.

This fallacy is not only common to people who stand against science but an inverse fallacy exists within many who support the Scientific status quo. The root of this fallacy comes from the false belief that Science is about absolutes and definite proof. But Science is not in fact about these things at all. Science is about finding the most plausible, probable and likely explanations based on the evidence available at any given time.

(2) Science cannot disprove that such and such a thing is true - therefore, this failure is, by default, support for the truth of the thing.

1. argumentum ad ignorantiam
2. a misunderstanding of the difference between the evidence of absence and the absence of evidence
3. a misunderstanding of the principles of falsifiability and sufficiently
4. a shifting of the burden of proof

(1) Scientists and skeptics are closed-minded and are not open to other possibilities (not open minded).
Contrary to popular opinion, being open-minded does not mean accepting all manner of claims and ideas equally. Not all ideas and claims have equal evidential weight. To accept each claim equally, in the absence of supporting evidence, is not being open-minded, it is being credulous.

So number 2 lead me to refine my search and found a treasure trove of links off of this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#See_also

This link takes you to a table with an incredible assortment of fallacies.

Here is another great link that lists them and explains each one:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm

The one thing that is obvious to me from all of this is that diciplined thinking is sorely lacking in modern discourse. Marketing and sales gurus have for centuries taken advantage of undiciplined thinking to get people to accept all sorts of incredulous ideas. Often these people have been duped out of their property, their freedom, even their very lives.

Millenia ago Aristotle identified 13 fallacies to reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistical_Refutations

I wonder sometimes what our world would be like if most people (as opposed to a very few) understood these fallacies and diciplined themselves not to fall prey to them. What sort of world would we have, what would our news media have to hawk? How would democracy behave if people understood the basics of sound reason? The brave men who wrote our constitution believed that those who helped run our democracy would in fact understand the principles of reason. How unfortunate that most of us have forgotton these things.

By Fionndamnh

Once upon a time I was a member of a poetry club.  I wrote poetry, read other peoples poetry and in general had a good time each Sunday in a coffee shop now out of business in downtown New London.

Once I shared the following set of lyrics with the head of the poetry club who subsequently tore it apart as being bad poetry.  Perhaps he was right, perhaps he was wrong, but never the less when I heard these words delivered in the song from which they come I found a great deal of personal inspiration.

The words I am speaking of are by a math metal rock group knowin as System of a Down, and they come from their Toxcicity CD.  The song is called Aerials and here are the words:

Life is a waterfall,
We’re one in the river,
And one again after the fall.

Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We loose ourselves,
But we find it all? Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,And we are the ones that want to choose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.Life is a waterfall,
We drink from the river,
Then we turn around and put up our walls.

Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We lost ourselves,
But we find it all?

Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,

And we are the ones that want to choose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.

Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.

Life is a waterfall,
We’re one in the river,
And one again after the fall.

Waterfalls to me connote a slow change or transformation.  Water is often associated with the womb, or the well of creation.  In the beginning we are all aware of the fact that we are all one, and in the end we will remember this once again.  I am reminded of the void mentioned briefly in Genesis of the Christian Bible, but probably more eloquently put by John C. Lilly in his essay “Before the Beginning“.

But what happens in the mean time? 

We drink from the well of creation, and then begin to put up our walls.  We forget that we are all one, and begin to think of ourselves as individal separate entities, grasping, consuming, and trying to build up our own brand of organization, accumulating ever greater numbers of monads in our private little empires of ego and delusion.  All the while forgetting that ours may not be the ideal configuration for every mondad in the Universe. 

Ultimately as Friedrich Nietzsche puts it: “the center does not hold”.  Eventually the empire collapses, and death and decay follows.  The empire whether it be a tiny protozoa or a global corporation, dissolves because of the increasing dissatisfaction of the monads that make up the empire.  Each of them senses in it’s own way that all is not bliss in Smallville.

The rest of the song simply reinforces the idea that letting go is important to salvation (per se).  Letting go of beliefs that do not satisfy, letting go of life when it no longer serves you to be alive, letting go of material things when the accumulation of those things causes destruction of the very things that sustain your ability to live.  Letting go.

I always listen to this song when I find myself clinging too much to things because in some way it helps me to let go. 

Check it out and see if it doesn’t help you do the same.

 Bright Blessings

By Fionndamnh 

There are those within the NISC congregation who proudly bear the signification Witch; hence the URL norwitches.org.  But to understand what this means to us we should first consider the etymology of the word “witch”.

Theorists have come up with many viable origins for the word “witch”. The most popular of these are the Proto Indo-European Theories. They are weik, weik and weid.  Most English dictionaries will use one of these three sources to describe the origins of ‘witch’.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, weik actually has five distinct etymological branches but only the two are attributed to the supernatural. In contrast, the Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, proponent of the ‘weid’ premise, states that ‘witch’ primarily comes from the word ‘witan’ through a series of phonetic changes.By combining these 5 elements of the etymology we can begin to discern the true heart of a witch.  See: http://www.agnosticwitch.catcara.com/witch-etymology.htm

1. A witch is one who first and foremost desires to see and to know.  Witches typically set thier own moral compas and march to their own drum.  We are out of the box thinkers who strive to find that which is best for us and not to allow others to dictate the path that we follow.  We share knowledge responsibly but we do not try to force others to adopt our beliefs.

2. Secondly, a witch seeks to learn the ways by which they can bend or fold.  Sometimes this involves certain kinds of magical pracices whereby the odds of a certain event happening are “bent” in “favor” of the witches desire.  This sort of bending is often referred to as the Lesser Magick.

More importantly a witch seeks to bend and fold themselves like a fine sword until they become strong and flexible human beings capable of discernment and inspiration.  This personal growth strategy is often referred to as the Greater Magick.

3. Many (not all) witches feel that there are non corporeal intelligences which can be of benefit to the witch as they follow their path.  These “divine” intelligences are often referred to as Gods and Goddesses, or Angels, or Demons depending on the practicioner.  It is interesting to note that the word “divine” (e.g. “Supernatural” Intelligences) and “divination” (To discern the present and find guidance for future action) share a common root.

4. Witches sooner or later come round to the idea that their body is a temple and that by extension so is their life.  Thereby we often conclude that it is best to choose activities that are wholesome and build us up in a clean and pure way.  We frequently adopt the view that our wholesome choices not only serve us but by extension serve the universe at large.  Much the way that a tree grows straight and tall so that it can satisfy it’s hunger for sunlight, but by doing this it also provides benefit to the environment around it.

However witchtes being the independent creatures that we are learn for ourselves in our own way that which is right for us and that which is wrong.  A cactus will never thrive in a swamp, nor can a lillypad thrive in the desert.

5. Finally a witch practices magick, but what is magick?  To get a good grasp of what this word means to a true witch we can look at the very well spoken definition given by Alestair Crowley in his thesis “The Book of Thoth”:

“Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the Will.  In other words, it is Science, Pure and Applied.  This thesis has been worked out at great length by Dr. Sir J. G. Frazer.  But in common parlance the word Magic has been used to mean the kind of science which ordinary people do not understand.  It is in this restricted sense, for the most part, that the word be used ill this essay.

The business of Science is to explore nature.  It’s first questions are, What is this? How did it come to be?  What are its relations with any other object?  The knowledge acquired may then be used in Applied Science, whichs asks: How can we best employ such-and-such a thing or idea for the purpose that, to us, seems fit?”

So as witches we are first and foremost dedicated to the principle of independent exploration into the divine and the natural.  We dedicate our lives to the betterment of ourselves and the consequential betterment of the world around us.

Blessed Be

By Fionndamnh 

My roots and ordination are tied to the Universal Life Church.  So to begin this essay it seems only proper to look first to the definition that the ULC gives to “god” or the “almighty”. 

Typically the term has come to be accepted as being a reference to a supreme being, or creator.  In other words a divine intelligence from whence all things spring.  In the Judeo-Christian realm, this intelligence has largely masculine qualities hence the term “god the father”, other qualities that have been attributed to “God” by the predominate religious institutions in this Country are:

1. God is omnipotent - all knowing all seeing
2. God is love
3. God is the creator of all that exists
4. God is jealous and will not tolerate anything having a higher place in the hearts and minds of men than himself.

In Islam, there is the belief that “Allah” (e.g. god) is everywhere and has no form or gender.  The Islamic belief in god is more akin to a belief in a super-intelligent field that permeates the universe and is the root cause of all things that happen. 

In the aforementioned religions there is a shared belief that if you do not submit to the will of “god” and declare your belief in him to be first and foremost in your life, that ultimately you will be punished by exquisite tortures in an afterlife that follows.  The interesting thing to note here is that while these belief systems declare on the one hand that you have been made by perfect “hands” to fulfill a specific purpose preordained by your creator, you have been given a nature by those hands that leads you to behave in a way that is displeasing to the creator and will ultimately cause you to be punished eternally unless you subscribe to a belief system that teaches you to deny your nature, and adhere to a set of practices that for most of us feels quite unnatural. 

It is only by behaving in a manner that is out of sorts with the way your perfect creator has made you that you might find salvation from “his” wrath.

Many who follow the path of Wicca (an increasingly popular spiritual belief system in this country) see “god” as a duality consisting primarily of a male aspect (e.g. the Lord) and a female aspect (e.g. the Lady).  This has the interesting benefit of allowing both sexes to have the same kinds of polar relationships with “god” that were only available to nuns of the catholic church.  

It is a very difficult thing for a purely heterosexual male to think of himself as the “bride of Christ” in the same way that a purely heterosexual female is able to.  However it is no great stretch for a heterosexual male to think of himself as a corporeal “consort” to “the Goddess”.  This brings back a sexual dynamic between man and divinity that had previously only been available to women, and homosexual men.

So the Wiccan way gives each sex a two parent family essentially whereas the Christian faith relegates the role of the female in the divine family to a purely reproductive capacity (a.k.a Mary) or a reformed Whore (a.k.a. Mary Magdalene).

The Buddhists see “god” as the re-integrated synthesis of all enlightened souls who have achieved a state of ultimate bliss and been re-integrated into the universe.  As such, they are closer to the belief that we are all a part of the mind of god.

The followers of the Church of Satan (ala Anton LaVey) see “god” as an unconscious force or field which acts upon all things in a pair of forces “sa” and “tan” loosely related to the oriental concept of “yin” and “yang”, or the Hindu paired forces of “creator” and “destroyer”.

Thus Satanists see “god” as a motivating and balancing dark force in nature.  Satan is also described as being the “Black Flame”, representing a person’s own inner personality and desires. Satan is seen as synonymous with the nature and even, metaphorically, with certain conceptions of a supreme deity or God.

Satan is said to appear in mythology and literature around the world as a trickster, rebel, and hero. Figures such as the Greek Prometheus are said to perfectly exemplify the qualities of Satan, the prideful rebel. Other deities, such as Ahriman, Apep, and Loki, are seen as examples of different manifestations of the same archetype.Satan is seen as the powerful individual who acts regardless of what others might say.

The word satan is Hebrew for “adversary”, and Satanists claim to be adversaries of mainstream behavior which they define as “herd conformity”, seeing it as stifling to individuality, creativity, and progress.

Satanists do not believe that Satan is a god; rather, the function of God is performed and satisfied by the Satanist him/herself. That is, the needs of worship, ritual, and religious/spiritual focus are directed, effectively, inwards towards the Satanist, as opposed to outwards towards a God.

LaVey proposes instead that as all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, “I am my own god.”

The Thelemic tradition most widely popularized by Aleister Crowley takes a slightly different bent on the subject of who or what is “God”.  To best illustrate this viewpoint, consider for a moment that all things that are part of what we commonly perceive as “existence” or the “universe” are composed of infinetesimally small elemental objects called monads (for those of a classical training in the sciences atoms will do for the purpose of visualization so long as you keep in mind that even a subatomic particle is actually comprised of possibly millions of monads).

These monads, are unchangeable in their most elemental form, they have the properties of locality, and dimension, as well as motion.  Furthermore, they have the properties of thought, and memory and bliss.  Consider that these monads are each and every one a god in their own right, in that they are unchanging and have been here all the time.  Consider further that they participate in combinations of increasing complexity from subatomic particle, to molecule, to man, to archilect (the synthesis of many intellects interacting in superorganizations such as Gaia).  The purpose of this is to explore the ramifications of these combinations to essentially find the most blissful pairings (kind of like finding your soul mate(s) but at a microatomic level).  It is interesting to note that should all the monads in the universe achieve such a bliss, that this might be akin to the notion of Heaven on Earth, or Kingdom Come, or even the Hindu postulate of ultimate Nirvanna.

Such a viewpoint certainly explains why a universe could be created in which there is disease, death and war.  The monads are not terribly interested in preserving any particular configuration (e.g. people, nations, worlds) but in experiencing new combinations.  War, death, disease, old age, extinction, planetary destruction… these sort of cataclysmic events do tend to reorient large sets of monads into entirely new and possibly more interesting configurations.  This is not unlike the notion of evolution.

I am reminded of an interesting quotation at the end of the book “Stranger in a Strange Land” in which the main character looks into the eyes of a grasshopper as he is being beaten to death by a crowd of people who simply don’t like the religeon he is teaching and says to the little grasshopper “thou art god”.

So what is God?  Nearly everyone who believes in a supreme being sees that being as the driving force behind the course of their life, some see god as benevolent to them because they subscribe to a particular set of beliefs and practices and malevolent to anyone else who doesn’t fit in, some see god as benevolent to all and tries to do what is best for each and every individual insofar as it is possible given that we often have competing interests, some see god as an indifferent architect who has no particular interest in any one individual but simply has a divine plan which “he” seeks to unfold.  One thing that all “believers” in god have in common is that they see  god as the “one (group?)  in charge”. 

There is greater distinction as to where exactly the throne of god sits (e.g. Inside each of us, or outside somewhere). Some see god as a being that is separate from us and watching “over” us.  Others see god as a manifestation of the best in each of us (e.g. god comes from within).

Maybe one reason why so many religions fail to ascribe a particular name to god is due to the intangiable “unknowable” nature of god.  It is sort of up to you to decide who or what god is now isn’t it?

Welcome to the Norwich Independent Spiritual Congregation.  We are finally up and running.  We hope that you will find this site of value to you as you find your own way as a unique star in the universe. 

We seek to provide a tool to you the indepentent spiritual thinker to help them walk your path and find your true will. 

“Do what thou wilt”.