NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/satanism/3030

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 8.8 KB | 189 lines

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!titan.ucs.umass.edu!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Some views about satanism
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:18:11 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 175
X-Posted-From: titan.ucs.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne Radinsky) writes:

>>> Christians don't realize that  they  preach against "legalism" (referring
>>> to the law of moses,  of course)  but  practice  legalism  in  many ways.
>>> Swearing is the best example.  What matters isn't the =words=,   but  the
>>> =intent= behind the words.
>>
>> Well then Wayne, what about sex? Should we (xtains) let the Homosexuals do
>> their thing if it is of good intent?
>>
>> What about theft? What if you steal & give to a "good cause"?
>>
>> What about murder? If a terrorist act (for example) has good intents, such
>> as freeing one from religious oppression, is it justified even if it kills
>> innocents?
>
>My friend, you understand perfectly! If a person is killing innocent people,
>by killing them you may save  lives.   What  about people who kill extremely
>abusive parents?  What about those who attempted to kill Hitler? If they had
>succeeded,  they'd be heros, not killers!  What about war?  If we do to war,
>isn't our killing justified,  or not justified,  by our reasons for going to
>war?

*shrug* I have no clearly defined (simplistic) set of moralities. Each
situation would have to be individually judged...

>My  position  is even justified by the Bible:  read  Joshua,   where  Israel
>conquers the Canaan  --  killing and pillaging,  not just at God's approval,
>but at God's command.

As far as _this_ goes, it has nothing to do with what I said in the me
last set of comments. "God's approval" has nothing to do with what I was
speaking of and should never be used as an excuse for anything like genocide.
Saying it was "God's will" removes the responsibility of the Khabiru (roughly
translated as "Vagrants" in Akkadian & the root of "Hebrew") for their
genocidal exploits of the past. Eases their conscience on what they did &
gives them licence for all manner of genocidal adventured (which, to a lesser
extent, continue today among their genetic and philosophical descendants)

>> I like legalism. Makes life simpler.
>
>Yeah, too simple.  And it backfires, too.  The harder you try =not= to think
>about sex,  or drugs,  or  someone you hate,  the more it gets stuck in your
>brain. Close your mind and force all thoughts of sex out of your mind!

Er, what kind of legalism tells one not to think of sex, drugs & etc? (there
are laws banning porn & certain sexual behaviors, but none against thought yet)
The ones that attempt to dictate action on these topics (like Prostitution
laws & prohibition), which are moral/religious laws rather than common good
laws, are notorious for their failures and extreme repressiveness. These
laws are the ones that are turning our present culture into one based on
fear, repression, hate & mistrust. Morality cannot be controlled by
legislation in anything approaching a "free" society. With any luck, people
will begin to realize this in our own culture.

>I  agree  with Paul the apostle,   that  this  kind  of  legalism  leads  to
>judgement, condemnation, self-hatred, hatred, etc, etc, etc.

Paul (who was not an apostle) is the fellow who is primarily responsible
for this "legalism" in xtianity. He is the one that emphasised purity of the
body & spirit. Shit, Jesus was the one who associated with prostitutes,
not Paul.

>    Q.  How may I know when the  will  to  a  couse of action is
>    justifiable, or when I am forcing my own personal will which
>    may lead to inaction which is equally unjustifiable?
>
>    A.  By listening within -- there is the answer.   For,   the
>    answer to every problem, the answer to know His way, is ever
>    within  --  the  answering within to that real desire,  that
>    real purpose which motivates activity in the individual.

I prefer to use logic & deductive reasoning rather than listening to
hallucinated voices. I think most would agree.

>    These appear at times  to  become contradictory,  of course;
>    but  know  -- as the illustration  has  been  used  here  --
>    attunement,  atonement and at-onement are *one*; just as the
>    inner self is  that  portion  of  the  infinite,   while the
>    self-will  or  personality  is ever at war with the infinite
>    within -- for the lack of what may be called stamina, faith,
>    patience,  or whatnot.  Yet each  entity,  each soul,  knows
>    within when it is in an at-onement.
>
>                    -- Edgar Cayce

Yah, Edgar Cayce probobly _would_ rather listen to his hallucinations. BTW,
I am waiting for atlantis to rise (was supposed to happen in th 1960's &
a couple of volcanoes do not count in my book)

>> Well then Wayne, what about sex? Should we (xtains) let the Homosexuals do
>> their thing if it is of good intent?
>
>I don't know.  The only plausable  cause of homosexuality I've ever heard is
>the reincarnationist viewpoint:  namely, a person incarnates as one sex, say

You call this a plausible cause? Do you have any evidence of reincarnation?
I'll take the psychological theories as more useful, untill better models
are proposed.

>> <ooo, physics arguments below! {rubs hands together}>
>
>Oh you get a kick out of that, eh?  Warning to everybody: this stuff is more
>evil than everything else on alt.satanism...
>
>>>> Ultimately whole universe  doesn't  work  at lower level by the means of
>>>> human logic,  which can be proved by studying physics (Quantum mechanics
>>>> especially).
>>>
>>> Not true.  It's true 1) that we don't completely understand the universe,
>>> and
>>
>> Firstoff,  Kimmo's statement that we can proove  the universe doesn't work
>> according to human logic (perhaps macroscopic logic is a better phrase) is
>> correct (assuming the meaning I do).  We understand  enough  about  QM  to
>> realize  that  "common  sense"  does  not  apply to "microscopic" systems.
>> Bell's Theorem is pretty much bulletproof in  this  respect.   Second off,
>> what does your statement #1 have to do with his statement?
>
>First, You're right, it's not "common sense", however my point was,
>( (counter-intuitive) != (incomprehensible) )

No, the mathematical logic is quite self-evident when studied to the level
it was formulated at. The reason it is incomprehensible is that there are
several hundred logical steps that are left out when a physicist says (for
example) wave-particle duality.

>Second,   I  was pointing out  that  he  couldn't  argue  physics  (or  "the
>universe")  doesn't  work  according  to  human logic on the grounds that we
>don't know it all. That's all.

That is kind of circular reasoning. So far, all evidence points to the fact
that everything seems to be understandable in principle...

>>> 2)  that we didn't invent  it (obviously)  so,  of course it doesn't work
>>> according to human logic in that sense, and 3) that there are effects for
>>> which we don't understand the  cause  --  we  have  precise formulas that
>>> describe gravity, but we don't know why gravity exists, for example.
>>
>> I think "why" of gravity is a preposterous question! There is no "why"
>
>and there's also no "why" of quanta,  and no "why" of particle-wave duality,
>and  no  "why"  of  the  uncertainty  principle,   and  no  "why"  it's  all
>probabilistic,   with  (apparently)   nothing  deterministic  "behind"   the
>probabilities.

Even if everything was rigorously deterministic, I still say there is no
"why" in physics.

>> this is an idea from sociology or psychology put where it does not belong.
>
>That could very well be.
>
>> Perhaps "how" is more appropriate.
>
>No, it isn't.  It's basically the same question.  For example:
>
>> You would be correct in saying that,  in the domain of the extremely small
>> (Q.M.  domain) we do not understand the "how" yet. On a large scale, it is
>> fairly well understood (since the 20's)
>
>Tell me then,  =how= does  gravity work.  Don't tell me that F = GMm/r^2,  I
>know that -- tell me =how= two  massive  objects attract each other.  What's
>the underlying mechanism?

According to general relativity, the "how" of gravity is that objects curve
the local spacetime. Since there is a thing called "inertia" objects tend to
follow the geodesics (a "straight-line" in a general space) in the curved
spacetime, so  basically there is no "gravitational feild" or force, just
inertia. There are, of course deeper levels of "how," & eventually you get
silly questions from asking "how" as well (or perhaps merely unanswered
questions).


-Scott