#it does not please the lord but very few things I've done thus far pleases it

[somanywips]

Sanji puts his fingers inside of Zoro's mouth and Zoro bites them. Not enough to hurt, not even to leave a mark, but he could do it. Could bite down hard enough to rip them apart, reach inside of Sanji's chest and rip his ribcage open, squeeze his heart until it stops. He could.

But he lets Sanji's fingers rest on his tongue, tasting his skin, feeling the ash from the cigarettes. Let's him drag his nails across his back, leaving thin red trails that lead to nowhere good.

[serpentstole]

Can I ask what's wrong with Michael W Ford's books? I never read them but I've seen often people recommending them, so I'm curious. Thank you and have a nice day.

Thanks for the question! Sorry if this gets a little long, TL;DR is at the bottom but I've broken down some more specific examples in point form.

I'll preface this by saying that if people get something worthwhile from Michael W Ford's books, that's their business and I'm happy for them. However, there's a few things about his writing and him as a person that I don't really love and struggle to get behind. Most of the specific textual examples I give are from the Bible of the Adversary specifically, as it's one of his more famous books and the only one I personally have had the mental fortitude to page through so far.

- I'm immediately leery of anyone who's often described as a "visionary" or "luminary" on websites selling or listing their books, especially when I've gotten the feeling that it's just that his books are accessible and plentiful. Even among fans of authors like E. A. "Become A Living God" Koetting, the general opinion seems to be that his books lack a lot of consistency and are a bit poorly written. Can confirm for the Bible of the Adversary, at least. There's some parts of that thing that could have used a once-over by an editor.

- I try very hard not to use what happened to the Greater Church of Lucifer/GCoL against him. Another member of the community that I do still (loosely, infrequently) interact with was also involved, and while I sincerely wish they'd both more deeply researched the man they were signing up to run a very public and scrutinized church with, I think his turning into a scam artist who publicly converted to Christianity was enough punishment there. Likewise, I'm a bit uncomfortable with his past involvement with the Order of Nine Angels/ONA/O9A given the fact that they're a pack of murder advocating nazis, but apparently he left when he discovered that fact, so I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that he truly did distance himself from them immediately upon learning of their beliefs, as I don't know when these things became more widely known. However, both of these fumbles alongside how he presents himself and his books just don't sit well with me, as the most generous interpretation is that he was twice-misled in some pretty dangerous and harmful ways by those that are damaging to the public perception of Luciferianism, but still likes to be some figurehead of the Luciferian community. People make mistakes, and people can be misled, and people can learn from past experiences, but his track record is a bit upsetting for a supposed authority.

- His work includes pieces and ideas from occultists or practices that I tend to avoid in my own practice and study, such as Thelema and Crowley's writing as a whole, inspiration taken from the Temple of Set/Setian magic, Qlipoth (because it wouldn't be a Luciferian grimoire without pilfered Jewish mysticism), and forms of Gnosticism that embrace the idea of God as an evil demiurge (which i explained my discomfort with in my previous post). I'm also not a huge fan of his "all magic comes from within" approach (and find it hard to reconcile with his frequent use of Luciferian deities/spirits and demons), nor that he'll talk about Cain's role in "Luciferian grimoires" without actually naming any... though given how similar a piece of Lilith themed artwork he's done looks to Andrew Chumbley's illustration, I assume he means the sort of books the Cultus Sabbati was writing. I wish I still had the Ford version saved or could remember which of his books it's from, the side by side comparison is painful but without it I risk looking like I'm making things up.

- Heavy, heavy use of Lilith, which I don't love for reasons I outlined before. She mostly seems to appear whenever spooky lustful sex magick is being discussed, which is great, that's great.

- He also uses the Wiccan wheel of the year sprinkled in among his more Luciferian focused holy days, which is just really funny to me. Why are we celebrating Beltane, Michael? Why are we celebrating Imbolg? (Page 69)

- He likes to use a lot of "black magic" and "vampyre magic" stuff which tends to feel very sensationalized and over the top to me. I've seen discussions of vampiric magic I found very interesting, but so far his hasn't been one of them.

- He sometimes seems to conflate Lucifer with Samael which I really truly dislike, though it's admittedly not the most baffling or out of left field take I've seen.

- Ford at times seems to either willfully misrepresent or misunderstand information he's passing along. For example, in the Bible of the Adversary he says that Cain's name comes from "...root ‘Kanah’ which means to possess. This by itself presents the antinomian nature of his essence, while instead of sacrificing his most bountiful items to the Lord, he kept them for himself." As I understand it, discussion surrounding Cain's name possibly coming from the Hebrew word קנה (kana) lean more into it being the word for to get or to obtain, referencing Eve's declaration after his conception that she'd gotten a man from the Lord. I'm all for alternate interpretations, but it feels like needless edgy-fying to fit the narrative he's trying to present. (Quote from Page 58)

- He'll say some absolutely bonkers shit like "Abel in some Luciferian Lore is considered a lower pre-form of Cain, thus the sacrifice was not literal" with zero citations or references. Like sir what the fuck does that mean, what Lore, please give us the lore please. (Footnote, Page 59)

- His interpretation of the Watchers and the Book of Enoch is so insultingly bad that I won't even relay it here, but if I see one more person claim that an angel, demon, or spirit they want to distance from Christianity or Judaism is actually a Babylonian god I'm going to go feral.

- As I've hinted at above, it feels like he'll just cherry pick and regurgitate for no real purpose. A few spirits from other texts like the Lesser Key and the Grimoire Verum get mentioned for... mostly the set of names, it seems like, he just kind of lists them out of context.

TL;DR, Michael W Ford feels (to me at least) like someone who has picked out the more appealing and edgy occult trivia and magic he could find from a wide range of sources, recontextualized the parts that didn't appeal to him until they fit his aesthetic and purposes, and presented them as a workable entry point to the Luciferian religion and its potential magical systems that is all flash no substance... and then could barely polish the flash. I don't like that he's many people's first exposure to the concept of theistic Luciferianism, and I don't like how authoritatively he presents his jumbled works as what the religion is truly about when it's so broad a label. Again, if there is something that someone finds useful within his books I am very happy for them, but I have struggled to find anything I could point to that make them worth the read... even for me to investigate further keep critiquing.

I honestly do not know why so people recommend them, unless it's just that they're easy to buy, reasonably inexpensive, and specifically have the Luciferian label on them. If that's truly the case, those people are being lazy and uncritical in a way that doesn't speak well to their apparent Luciferian ideals.

[thescienceofapologetics]

I went to a church tonight with a friend and it was a completely new experience, thus I have a few questions :) 1) the pastor specifically defined it as a pentecostal church, what does that mean? 2) my friend say they have been known to speak in tongues, which I've heard of, but I don't really understand it. Can you explain this to me? 3) I just emailed the pastor and asked if we could talk sometime. I have no clue why?? Also, I feel like the email seemed creepy, so I'm anxious about that....?

Good for you for stepping out and trying something new!

1.) By my understanding, a Pentecostal Church is a denomination that tends to focus on God as being an experience, they’re defined as charismatic, and the outlook is often one comparable to a “spiritual high”. A lot of their preaching is disturbingly similar to the New Age movement which encourages you to empty your mind. While some of their theology may be doctrinally sound, there is a very present danger in viewing God as a type of adrenaline rush, because that is not what God is about. God is not about making you feel good all the time. The Christian walk often does have very weary points of trial and struggle, and the Holy Spirit’s job is not to give us a thrill, it is to help us live godly lives. Certainly God can do spectacular things, but the problem with charismatic churches is that the focus is often put on people, not on God, and instead of looking to how we can serve God, there is a vain mindset of “how can God serve me?” Furthermore, it distracts from the Bible, rather than emphasize it which is what we, as Christians, should be doing. Which brings us to the next question…

2.) What is speaking in tongues? Speaking in tongues is something that really happened in the Bible. The name “Pentecostal” comes from the Pentecost we read about in Acts 2. Jesus ascended to Heaven, and the Holy Spirit filled the disciples. God then allowed them to speak in a languages they did not know in order to share the gospel. In the Bible, speaking in tongues was always in a translatable language and done in the presence of unbelievers solely for the purpose of sharing the gospel. Today when people talk about speaking in tongues, they are usually talking about something altogether different. It’s often mumbling or gibberish, sometimes with witnesses and sometimes alone. In extreme cases people will writhe on the floor with shrill cries. The latter is more resemblent of demon possession for it is FAR from anything the Bible presents as from the Lord. I believe that speaking in tongues, such as that which we read about in Acts, ended in Paul and the disciple’s day, and is not something that happens in the present and here is a more extensive why with more scripture to back it up. That being said, I also believe that God can do whatever He pleases for His glory. The problem is that speaking in tongue as is demonstrated by charismatic churches such as the Pentecostal, are often not used to bring glory to God, but rather to one’s self, or it is simply an empty performance. It is not the biblical representation of speaking in tongues.

I definitely have a fair number of solid Christian friends that would air slightly on the charismatic side of the spectrum. I believe them to be biblically grounded believers, despite a difference in certain theological views. There are moderate to extreme views when it comes to speaking in tongues, but as with absolutely everything and every church, we need to keep going back to what does the Bible say? We don’t need extra revelation from God or an unearthly experience to know who He is and how He wants us to live, He has given the whole Bible for that, something we can spend our whole lives trying to understand and still learn from daily. It is really important to remember that God stays the same whether we “feel” Him like we think we should or not. While I think it is fantastic that you are being bold and looking for a church, I want to just impress upon you that the Church is not a replacement for the Word of God. Strive to be discerning, and better yet, pray that God would help you to be discerning. A great place to start is by taking a look at the church’s statement of faith. Go piece by piece and see if what they say matches up with what the Bible says by comparing it with verses.

3.) Talking with a pastor is great! It can really help you better understand if this is a church you should invest in or not. Don’t be afraid to ask questions!

Praying for you as you start off in this new adventure of seeking to know God better!