How do I summon demons via sigils? Is every deamon different? Do I just draw the sigil in salt and light some black candles? How will I know when the demon is summoned?
If I summon a demon just for a test, will I be forever banned from heaven? Like if I can summon a demon I'll know God is real, so I can live a pious life. Does God ever forgive demon summoning or does he consider it an insult to his power?
OP, first thing you should do is delete this thread, that is the ultimate lamer poster. It's a fake joke image only n00bs and trolls post.
>>17425214
>If I summon a demon just for a test, will I be forever banned from heaven?
assuming you're asking from a Christian perspective:
no, there's only one unforgivable sin, and that's "blasphemy of the holy spirit", which basically means persisting in disbelief even after having witnessed his power firsthand.
summoning a demon is no more unforgivable than murder or masturbating...however, it would be much more dangerous, as the demon could start harassing you or become obsessed.
>an insult to his power?
the only real "insult" you can make to God's power is to deny it...that you exist is proof of God's power, and so to deny is to plainly say, like an arrogant ass, that you don't even exist.
it's certainly sin to summon demons, but it isn't unforgivable.
>how do I summon demons
watch this...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dTJBWMFRO6g
yes, the production values are kinda cheesy, but herein contained is pretty much everything you need to know about how solomonic demon summoning actually works.
bear in mind that you probably have a lot of misconceptions about how demon summoning works and what it does, so go into this with an open mind.
>summoning a demon proves that God is real
God's existence is easily proven by reason alone in aquinas' 5 ways. you have to be practically retarded or have a flawed understanding of God to deny his existence.
>>17425481
So everyone who doesn't believe in some invisible being that created stuff is practically retarded?
>>17425504
>invisible being that created stuff
this ties into what I said otherwise: that you're either retarded or you have a flawed concept of God.
conceiving of God as a being which created is that flawed concept of God, and is called "theistic personalism"; you have to be even more of a retard to believe in theistic personalism.
the correct understanding of God is as in classical theism, which conceives of God as simply being the ultimate underpinning of reality, more in line with a willful tao than with a sky fairy concept of God.
additionally, the notion of "created" in your descriptor is wrong as well, as God is continually creating rather than simply the one-time "artificer of the universe". better would be to consider him as the musician who plays the song of existence.
but, yes, you're clearly a retard if you deny the correct concept of God, for in denying God you admit that infinite regress is truth, and such is preposterous idiocy.
>>17425517
>everyone who doesn't agree with my way of thinking is retarded
How does this make you any different from millions of self centered pompous intellectuals?
>>17425810
>1+1=2
>if you say 1+1 is anything else, you're wrong
>well, that's just your opinion, man.
>>17425517
The bible defines God or at least God with a capital G. Your redefining of "God" does nothing and Aquinas' five ways are actually left with quite a few logical holes. To assume without God that infinite regress would be truth is just utter bullshit and you try to dress up as theological genius. I would like some solid evidence that any god at all contributed or was the original mover etc. of anything. The unknown is the the unknown not what you say it is or what you try to determine with flawed reason. The universe should not exist according to simple human logic because nothing has to become a form of energy for the universe to exist. That includes your "original mover"
>>17425850
It's not that simple you're dealing with what could the most complex mathematical equations with at least two possible answers because there are so many different variables.
>>17425858
disprove aquinas' argument from motion in a way that isn't just handwaving and screaming "bullshit"....
>>17425883
>1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
This is of course true I will not argue against this.
>Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Well yes anyone could tell you this.
>Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
More obvious stuff.
>Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Ok with you so far.
>Therefore nothing can move itself.
This is where he starts to lose me. How does he get the conclusion that nothing can move itself? If one human being is counted as one whole then yes such a being does indeed move itself. He simply states "nothing" which excludes everything. Human beings are something.
>Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
No argument on this one.
>The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Every movement sequence has a beginning and end. Though this does not point towards any or even some divine intervention.
>Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
I must call "bullshit" on this one. He leads you to this "original mover" and you only accept it because he was making sense most of the way and most people who read this already believe in God. There doesn't have to be any god of any sort that set anything in motion. If this implies a being moved anything at the beginning it is a logical fallacy to assume it because we simply do not know for sure. If it is not a being that was the original mover it simply isn't God or for that matter a god at all.
>>17425214
The 72 Goetic "demons" are not demons. They are the Old Gods of the ancient peoples (Gentiles) massacred by the followers of the evil Yahweh.
>>17425931
>This is where he starts to lose me. How does he get the conclusion that nothing can move itself? If one human being is counted as one whole then yes such a being does indeed move itself. He simply states "nothing" which excludes everything. Human beings are something.
human beings are moved by their muscle's metabolic processes, which are ultimately powered (that is, moved) by the chemical energy found in our food...
>If it is not a being that was the original mover it simply isn't God or for that matter a god at all.
this is why I stress that you have an incorrect and personal theist concept of God. that is you're only correct when you get to hamfistedly define God in such a way that isn't how God was defined before modern times.
Aquinas is arguing that whatever the first mover would be worth the title of god, not that an arbitrary being we made up and call God is the first mover.
>>17425214
Have you thought of calling upon God without calling upon demons? I'm sure that will bring about better results.
>>17425942
>human beings are moved by their muscle's metabolic processes, which are ultimately powered (that is, moved) by the chemical energy found in our food
Though this energy counts as part of the self when it is integrated. Otherwise we would just view ourselves as a collection of atoms capable of motion. The energy becomes part of you.
>>17425951
>Otherwise we would just view ourselves as a collection of atoms capable of motion
that is what we are though. biology is just a mechanism built up of atoms.
>>17425942
>this is why I stress that you have an incorrect and personal theist concept of God.
No the concept of any god at all is that it is a being. The definition of the word is important in it's usage. Even in ancient times they thought the world moved with sentience.
>>17425954
When we talk of humans the energy is in fact a part of them like what you eat becomes a part of you.
>>17425214
Oooh ha ha ha ok so I'll only use it in a demon emergency, wait when will I know I'm having a demonic level emergency and not just a random Tuesday afternoon demon summoning?
Fk u guys are pathetic
>>17425951
>Though this energy counts as part of the self when it is integrated.
that's irrelevant and simply a pedantic ass's twisting of words.
you can't move (I.e. have metabolic processes) without energy which comes from outside the self.
read up on thermodynamics if you really must...
>>17425981
I understand that it's just only when the energy is a part of the self can it move a muscle. Therefore we do in fact move ourselves.
>>17425966
>schizophrenic /r9k/ faggot
opinion discarded.
>>17425991
>facts discarded
>>17425991
I later lost the file. It seemed like a lot of work so I said fuck it.
>>17425999
dude, I don't care about your file. you're literally mentally defective.
do you understand now why I say you must be practically retarded to deny God? you're objective proof of this fact.
>>17426002
I hear God in my head OK. There's no need to call anyone retarded I was just here to argue with you as a mental exercise.
>>17426002
You have been sufficient entertainment. Unless you have something else to say.
>>17426011
not the guy you're arguing with, but do you have severe OCD or something? you seem to keep replying in intervals of two
>>17426014
No I usually think and rethink everything. I had no idea I was doing it constantly though.
>>17426014
Or maybe I have OCD or maybe I dont.
shame the thread got derailed into oblivion by a retarded christfag and a tripfag who fed the former
OP, I would suggest not summoning or evoking anything using the sigils in the picture that you attached. I could give more information, but I don't know my shit that well so take it with a grain of salt.
>>17426002
Do you believe in Zeus?
Honestly anyone that doesn't believe in Zeus is retarded or hasn't had a proper definition.
Do you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster?
>>17426124
do you believe in niggers? anyone who doesn't believe in niggers is gonna get niggered.
