NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/satanism/2725

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.satanism:2725 alt.religion.sabaean:75
Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!eshin
From: [e-mail] (Eshin-Fun)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.religion.sabaean
Subject: Re: Name That Deity contest!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:12:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
Lines: 105
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

>>[e-mail] writes:
: I'm fed up with all the complaints and criticisms, both on and off
: the Net, for my chosen religion......

: So instead I want to try something different. I want to be
: something else besides a Satanist. One little problem:  I need a
: good symbol.......<<<<


Before the "monotheists", in their zeal, got lost in their religious
quibble, the theists, philosophers, and learned men of that time divided the
belief of people into two categories.

One, those who believe, who have religious "revealed scripture", prophets,
and saints these are the "Jews", "Christians" and followers of "Islam"; then
TWO those who follow their own head, and have philosophers, and worship the
stars, these are called "Sabaean".

If we "must" have symbols, specially for something we >feel< to be "perfect"
then why have an imperfect symbol to describe it?
We all know that mathematically and aesthetically the only most perfect
symbol already exists in the universe, whether in the microcosmos or
macrocosmos that symbol is of a sphere.

Through a microscope, the world of microcosmos, all things reduce to atoms
and they are spherical. They have spherical orbits and in all the circular
motion is eminent. Even when a perfect rotundness is absent still a
spheriodical image is present.

Through a telescope envisioning the cosmos, the world of the macrocosmos,
again we see that inspite of asymmetric design in some cases, the general
patterns is orbicular.

So why have an imperfect symbol for that which is matrix of the universe,
which symbolizes all that is or ever shall be?

A sphere, is the most apt to portray that.

Since here we attempt to define that whichis seen or which is notm then a
transparent, or crystal sphere would be the symbol par excellence tp
describe that idea.

Now, if divinity exists, it cannot be moral because it is beyond our human
limitations. It may have a myriad of qualities which we could argue but in
essence it must be observed that it is "hidden" or "latent".

In ancient egypt already this concept was eminent. The word "atom" was
borrowed by the Greeks from the Egyptian god "Atum" which in essance
represented that which the Greek coined after its name.

The theology of Memphis, and Heliopolis agreed on certain antiquities of
theirs that agreed with a concept which the Theban priesthood, adopting an
obscure word, made popular divinity.

This was AM'N meaning "the hidden" then they added RE meaning "light".
So in actuality "AMUN-RA" litterally translates "the hidden light".

Avoiding anachronistic imagery, it suffices to accept "AM'N" as a name of
divinity, because by using this word, since it is both plural and singular
you cover any "number" and at the same time idea that is disembodied which
include the dead or spirits in the universe, whether they be terrestial or
extraterrestial. It also covers the daemon, elementals etc. ad infinitum.

        "THERE IS NO GOD, BUT AM'N, AND AM'N *IS* THE HIDDEN!"

So, when you are asked what your religion is, you say; "I am a Sabaean"

What do you believe in? they'll ask;  you say; "In the universe, the hidden
essance that is out there, here everywhere. I believe in the stars! After
all, we *are* made out of that which the stars themselves are made out of."

And then their stock rebuttal will be; But do you believe in God?

you answer; "I cannot believe since I know that in "the hidden" is all that
is, was and ever shall be. I cannot humble that grandiose majesty of the
universe and all that which I will never understand to a mere human
anthromorphic pleasure. If I must have a "god" it must, by its nature be
neither male nor female, zoopomorphic nor polyarmed. It must represent that
which I hold dearest, and that is mine own mind, the soul and the ability,
somehow to exercise an effort to comprehend that which I do not know. Keep
your idolatry of books to yourself for no one man nor any one thing can ever
be the absolute authority of any one idea. I am "Universal" and I am that I
am. Divinity does not need me, nor you in its perfection. Therefore if I
choose not to be subject to a "power" I can do so without need of
explaination or rational. It is after all, my choice and the Hidden will
quite accept that. If on the other hand I prefer to fashion anything for the
conveyance of my thoughts as my point of concentration I can choose any
symbol I want, but with a sphere all is represented and with a sphere I
possess that which the superstitious will acknowledge as the "Eye Of God".

And if the individual questioning you, tries to further their inquiry, you
can easily deterr their fascination by saying;

"Look, I am satisfied, for now coming to peace with all that is hidden, I
can choose and concern myself with that which is obvious, and that is that I
am late to catch the next bus, or whatever transportation comes to mind."


You see, you are not alone in searching for yourself. In fact it seems that
everyone is. But they envision that quest in many different ways.

We just have to recognize that each of us have the right to seek it
whichever way it makes sense to us.

Eshin-Fun