NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/satanism/2728

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 8.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.satanism:2728 alt.religion.sabaean:76
Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!ukma!netnews.louisville.edu!ulkyvx.louisville.edu!rtsumn01
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.religion.sabaean
Subject: Re: Name That Deity contest!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:55:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Netnews)
Organization: University of Louisville
Lines: 176
Nntp-Posting-Host: ulkyvx02.louisville.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eshin-Fun the
loon) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (your god and damnator) 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".

There are two types of people in this world:  those who divide everything
into categories, and those who don't.

I don't think I fit either of your categories above. What am I?

> If we "must" have symbols, specially for something we >feel< to be "perfect"
> then why have an imperfect symbol to describe it?

Um...MYOB?

Okay, answer number two:  I don't think of "perfect" and "imperfect" in the
way you do. Things *are*; they aren't perfect or otherwise. Perfection is
an artificial human standard.

> 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.

If I were into perfection, a sphere wouldn't strike me as particularly perfect.
It has no style.

> 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.

Even when an orbit is clearly elliptical it's still a circle. Have you
checked out the orbit of Pluto lately?

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

I'm not trying to symbolize all that is or ever shall be.

> A sphere, is the most apt to portray that.

I agree, but "that" is not what I'm after. Besides, I was looking for
something more sentient than a crystal sphere. Which is why I specifically
requested a deity, or similar person.

> 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.

"We"? You mean *you*. I'm not trying to define something best summed up by
a globe.

> 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".

I agree that divinity is not moral. However, the particular thing I'm
thinking of does have definite characteristics. They are not argueable. I
listed those characteristics. Why did you not address them?

> 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".

I'm not after light. I specifically listed "Night." I'm sorry I used the
term "Enlightenment," okay? Is that what confused you? Or was it your own
prejudices?

> 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"

No I don't.

> 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."

But that's not what I believe in! You are asking me to *lie*!

> 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.

I don't believe in universality. I'm a dualist. I don't *WANT* to represent
everything in one symbol. Furthermore, I don't care for the implication that
since I seek to quantify my beliefs in human terms, then I must be
superstitious.

> 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".

I desire to find a symbol to describe a definite set of characteristics. I
listed those characteristics. If I wanted a universal code, I'd have picked
a circle long ago. Please don't identify what you want with what I want.

> 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."

Yeesh. If someone is genuinely interested and listens to my answers, I'd
rather stay around and talk with them. If they don't (which is the case most
of the time) I wouldn't have gotten so far in the first place.

> 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.

Yeh, why don't you honor my version of the quest then? Instead you try to
tell me what I want, without consideration of what I said I wanted. Your last
statement seems pretty hypocritical in my mind. Why don't you take your own
advice?

> Eshin-Fun

Sheesh. Now I understand why everyone considers you a flake. This is
proselytizing, plain and simple. I posted on alt.satanism giving a plain and
simple description of what I was looking for. I never said I wanted to
convert to an existing religion, did I?

If you want to extoll the virtues of your religion, keep it in alt.sabeaen
where it belongs, and leave us out of it.

--Semhaza (The Antichrist)