XyphokonicOrder.org

What is Xyphoism?
Ordinance Website
Our Books
Xyphozon Information
Commentary ARchives
Freqently asked Questions
About Us
Social Media

  • Question: Do Xyphoites have opinions on other religions?

    Greetings from the Xyphokonic Order and Odinance. Welcome back, today we’re exploring an interesting question proposed to us recently about the general opinions or perspective Xyphoites may have towards other religions. We include in this discussion theigrited philosophies as well as other divergence philosophies unrelated to Deceptuary. As this is more a question proposed and a more informal discussion working on the basis of nuance and varied perspective, this isn’t necessarily an official Commentary more than it is an intriguing discussion. Let’s explore this question.

    Right from the start, we can give a very Xyphoist answer to this question by saying “no, not really” to the question of whether Xyphoites or the Ordinance and Order have a specific or unified opinion on other religions. Much like so many other topics, Xyphoites tend to keep our faith to ourselves as not to proselytize, and often see most issues with the perspective that our Free Will and spiritual liberties lead us to “mind our own business” and refrain from partaking in others’ ordeals. These core concepts often inform the larger perspective on the existence of other religions, which are allowed to exist and practice free from persecution from the Order and Ordinance or any other religion.

    This Free Will allows all beings to form their own personal opinions on other philosophies, but to remain consistent with Xyphoist Philosophy, we as Xyphoites will mostly keep those opinions personal and intimate to ourselves and very close peers, or at least not associate our Xyphoist connections to those opinions and remark on other religions independent of our own faith. Naturally, any opinion on other religions inconsistent with the core concepts of Xyphoist Philosophy or flat out be violations of Xyphoist Philosophy will not be condoned or ordained by the Order or Ordinance; we have these spiritual liberties and immoral acts for a reason.

    Speaking more directly on various religions, Xyphoites, being consistent with our philosophy, will view all religions outside of Xyphoism as “divergent.” However, it’s important to understand how divergency is defined under Xyphoist Philosophy. While it may seem the term is used negatively, that is far from the case. In fact, had Deceptuary not betrayed the other deities on the Divine Throne, one of his attributes would’ve remained Divergency and, as such, is built into reality itself and acts through our Spectrum now via a tag-team a cooperation of the Kyaius and Nakndsian Xyphozons as Deceptuary is clearly not acting in divine fashion any longer. Divergency isn’t negative, it is part of the Lords’ Will to let all of creation act upon our own Wills and guaranteed by the spiritual liberties we have; without this divergency, facilitated by Natural Flow and Free Will, stagnation would take place.

    With most divergent philosophies, no such obvious or direct opinion is levied. Philosophies stemming from Deceptuary—aptly identified as theigrited philosophies—may draw a stronger opinion from some Xyphoites. Simply put, Xyphoites may generally consider theigrited Philosophies as agents of Deceptuary’s corruption and plan to destabilize the Spectrum. We, as Xyphoites, are more likely to be critical of those particular philosophies, for much of their core ideals are antithetical to Maintaining the Equilibrium and may rely on our definition of immorality to function. Speaking on example, the condemnation of homosexuality found in nearly every theigrited philosophy is entirely antithetical to Xyphoist Philosophy and is a harmful and destabilizing concept that would certainly draw criticism among Xyphoist circles. This is one of many examples that may solicit stronger opinions in regards to theigrited philosophies from Xyphoites.

    Outside of that, there will certainly be common disagreements with various concepts found in all spiritual philosophies that could bring out contrasting opinions, but such disagreements are menial and unlikely to cause any major disruption between Xyphoites and other non-Xyphoites. As mentioned before, we keep our discussion to ourselves and within our own Sacred Grounds as a core tenant of our philosophy, so you won’t be seeing a Xyphoite getting into a public or open debate with a non-Xyphoite over various concepts of morality or theism; this is also true of our interactions with those who are agnostic or atheist. There is no interest in getting into debates over who is right or not as we fundamentally believe everyone is free to believe or not believe in whatever they choose, and that trying to figure out who is truly “right” defeats the chance of all of us to do good for each other as beings of existence. Arguments don’t help end worldly suffering, but working to help others, whoever they may be, does.

    So to conclude this discussion, it’s fair to say Xyphoites, by large, won’t be worrying about what others believe in, and certainly won’t be telling others they are right or wrong whenever possible. There may be times where we will condemn the actions of other divergent believes for using their believes to hurt others, but even then, we mostly wish to refrain from jumping into messy arguments and debates when organizing to help others from corruption is more pragmatic. We’re interested in being good Xyphoites and helping mitigate worldly suffering more than we are about “being right” or “going after” those that we disagree with; the latter is almost certainly to be immoral as proselytizing and entirely against our own philosophy.

    —AHG et. al

  • Commentary 36: The Purpose of Spiritual Liberty

    Greetings from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. Welcome back, all. Today we will go over the topic of Spiritual Liberty. Within the doctrine of the Order, Spiritual Liberty is a divine writ bestowed upon all of creation, faithful or otherwise, that is eternally guaranteed by the Nine Xyphozons to all beings. But why is Spiritual Liberty granted to all beings? Why would the Lords give the selection of Spiritual Liberties to beings of existence? Is it a mechanical reason? A sentimental reason? Let’s explore the concept.

    Going over the main types of Spiritual Liberties, all beings are given the liberty of belief or disbelief in the Order or any philosophy without punishment for the practice of said liberty; all beings are given liberty from forced conversion or proselytizing of any philosophy, Xyphokonic or otherwise. The divine attribute of Free Will is a liberty given to beings to choose their own actions and take upon all the results of said actions.

    These liberties are guaranteed by the Xyphozons and upheld by the Order. But what possible reasons would the Lords have for granting these liberties? Approaching the question from a mechanical standpoint, the freeing of the being in spiritual conquest facilitates the Order’s ultimate goals of Maintaining the Equilibrium. Imprisoning beings or subjecting beings to purposeful suffering through the denial of Liberty of Being undoubtedly causes needless destabilization to the Equilibrium; all worldly suffering left unchecked does so. So from a mechanical standpoint, this guarantee becomes a clear necessity.

    However, as with most things, mechanics aren’t the only concern. We recognize that the Lords were Initial Beings that cast their shadow from the Initial Flash, and with that shadow spawned existence. We also recognize that the attachment of Love is the “Initial Will”—that Love for existence is the Initial Will of the 10 deities that spawned existence and therefore would carry on to say the Lords of the Xyphokonic Order still hold this Love for existence. Harboring that Love for existence and all of creation would suggest the Lords would be more than apt to grant liberties to that which was spawned from Natural Flow—that they would demonstrate an Initial Love in our existence by granting us the liberty to be who we are, and to do what we will do, regardless of the impact.

    The entire flow of free movement of spirituality is the essence of our continued existence; the Cosmos work to keep the spiritual cycle and flow in motion to feed our existence further. It would be perfectly just, then, that our liberty is guaranteed to us by the Xyphozons through both a mechanical need to Maintain the Equilibrium but also to demonstrate an Initial Love for existence itself.

    —phX, voX, erX, whX

  • Commentary 35: Disrespect and Honorifics in Xyphoism

    Greetings, fellow Xyphoites and interested readers, from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. Today, we will be fielding a question regarding the general culture and etiquette of Xyphoist customs. We address the topic of using proper honorifics and other names/titles for key figures in the Order, Ordinance, and other figures. Is it disrespectful not to use honorifics to the Lords? What about addressing the Hayles by name without the honorific? The Sacred Children? What about the Arch-Hayle Grandurates? Let’s explore this concept.

    You’ll often see in other religious philosophies a certain avoidance from using the names of key figures such as gods or prophets in vain; included in this is always referring to such figures with honorifics or in high majesty. It would be considered inappropriate in some divergent religions to “use the lord’s name in vain” or to depict a key prophet or messiah in a less than dignified light. But does this etiquette exist in Xyphoist Philosophy as well?

    The short answer is: it’s encouraged but not enforced nor to a moral detriment not to. There is no requirement, morally or within the rules of the Ordinance, to refer to anyone as anything in high respect if one so choices not to. Naturally, most Xyphoites, especially those most devoted followers, would never purposely choose to show disrespect towards key figures, but there is no requirement or punishment for not doing so.

    You will notice, within these Commentary, we as the Arch-Hayle Grandurates will almost always refer to the Lords of the Xyphokonic with the honorific “Lord” before mentioning their name; often times, we will individually give unnamed majesty to our given Xyphozon’s Lord—referring to them as “Lord,” “the Father/Mother” (capitalized, when in reference to their Sacred Child), their Majesty, etc. All of these are personal choices derived from the devotion we have to the Lords; even capitalizing “Lords” demonstrates this devotional love.

    Disrespect is a queer concept in Xyphoist Philosophy, particularly when in regards to the Lords. The idea of bringing upon offense to the Lords by either not referring to them “properly” or to intentionally mock or attack their presence is superficial and unimportant. In regards to the Lords themselves, we hardly believe They would trouble Themselves with something as trivial as this—not only because the difference in stature but because Divergence and Free Will are enshrined in the spiritual liberties the Lords Themselves established for all of us. Dissent is all but assured under such circumstances.

    On the Ordinance level, we also don’t take any such offense to purposeful disrespect towards us or our philosophy. We both agree with the Lords’ ambivalence to this, and also simply handwave such silly antics as traits attributed to insecurity. To purposely mock is to show a petulance very much in line with Deceptuary—that being not a title of ultimate dissent but as a means to be petty.

    On the topic of the use of “Deceptuary” as the title for Arkellus, the Lords themselves branded Arkellus with this title to address their grievance with Arkellus’s betrayal. The full title given to him, that being Theigriet Arkellus Eulez Deceptuary, means “High Traitor, Arkellus of Deception” and given to him for his acts in deceiving his divine brethren and betraying the Divine Thrones they all had established to pursue his goal of collapsing that very reality and build one in his sole image. In this case, petulant disrespect wasn’t the goal; identifying Arkellus’s hurtful and selfish actions against not only his brethren but against the free existence of all that spawned from the Divine Thrones warranted a new title to be given to let all know that Arkellus had betrayed them. And while those in the Order and Ordinance will usually refer to Arkellus as Deceptuary, there is no requirement to do so either. If anything, referring to Arkellus with such a dissenting term shows the lack of Fear one has for Deceptuary’s presence—that we do not succumb to his Fear and will not back down from protecting our liberty and Order against his goal to waste away all of that for his own version of reality.

    Now, regarding honorifics towards other figures, it is even less of an issue. Hayles are key figures in the Order, but are still spiritual beings like everyone else. We often refer to each Hayle by simply their name even in these Commentaries. In terms of other officials in the Ordinance, honorifics are entirely optional although appreciated. Disrespect is subjective and relevant—you have to take offense to something personally to truly feel disrespected by words.

    —phX