Conference back40::soapbox

Wackos.

But I get a real kick outa the folks who think otherwise.

    Whackos all, *especially* if you leave the first word of the topic
    title off. :-)
    
    -b

    they've been butchering cows out west for decades. nothing a .300 mag
    slug to the head couldn't cure. especially suspicious are those
    claiming its aliens doing the butchering.

    Yes, I suppose they perform some sort of Satanic ritual involving
    propane, lava rock and spices. What a bunch of sickos.

    <------ :-) :-) :-)

	Satan's parties are the best barbecue's I've ever
been to.	%^)

	UUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum, love that smell of roasting meet.

    
    they worship Satan like that at MacArthur Park everyday and the
    smell is heavenly!
    

    Just another christian cult, if you ask me.

    Why worship a god who is defeated?

  <<< Note 67.9 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

>    Why worship a god who is defeated?


	Everyone likes to root for the underdog?

Jim

    
    RE: .8
    
    No one asked you.....
    

	Without evil how can you tell good ??

	Hey Kimball buddy, I'll be the bad guy, you ge the good guy !

	%^)

    What is the good of good without evil?

    Most of you would fail Reading Comprehension 101 so a discourse in the
    occult would be as worthwhile as spitting in the wind...

I heard Mr. Markey defending Aliester Crowley in the Introductions topic.
    
    If Crowley wasn't a Satan worshipper, than what did he stand for?
    
    -Jack

    re: .15
    
    Because he couldn't find a chair?

Does his being a Satan worshipper make him a threat or a wacko, Jack?

    re: .15
    
    As best I can remember (it's been a while), Crowley is
    based a lot on Isreal Regardi's work and the Order of the Golden
    Dawn. I do not believe he worshipped Satan, although I will
    not deny that his treatises had a more sinister side which did
    not appeal to me.  To broadbrush everyone who doesn't believe
    in your God as a Satanist tells me that rather than invest the
    time in finding out what a person stands for, you are willing to
    make assumptions and take actions based on those assumptions, simply
    because that person's belief system differs from yours.  This is
    a far more dangerous thing that carries potentially much more
    harm with it.  
    
    I would expect better of you, Jack.
    
    Mary-Michael

At least for those who were originally Christians, goddess spirituality is
more directed to destroying traditional religion than to seeking new sources
of truth.  It is unlikely that anyone believes the wisps of fairy tale that
practitioners call "goddess traditions".  In reality, ancient pagan deities
were not benign; historic witchcraft was not the pretty enchantment of a
movie Merlin.  Present-day understandings of primitive goddess religions
and of archaic witchcraft are based on scattered and uncertain sources in
mythology, legend and superstition and on trial records of less-than
absolute objectivity.  The Old Testament condemns the worship of "strange
Gods" as an abomination hateful to YHWH, involving ritual prostitution and
human sacrifice, but clinical detail is not provided, nor is its interior
logic explicated.  Temple prostitution, which feminist art historian Merlin
Stone admiringly calls "sacred sexual custom", was practiced in the Middle
East as worship honoring the goddess as patron of sexual love.  Some
authorities believe that children born to temple prostitutes were commonly
killed in sacrifice.  The faithless wife of Hosea left him to live as a
ritual prostitute.

Among many examples, Jer 7:16-34, condemning such idolatrous abuses as
offering "cakes for the queen of heaven" (Ishtar, Assyro-Babylonian goddess
of fertility, in v. 18) and the sacrificail immolation of children at
Topheth (v. 31).  Jer 19:5 and 32:35, 2 Chr 28:3 and 2 Kings 17:16-23 also
condemn child sacrifice and threaten God's punishment.  Hos 2:7-15, 1 Kings
14-24, 2 Kings 23:7 and Dt 23:18 mention sexual practices honoril Ba'al as
male principle of reproduction and goddess Asherah (Astarte Ashtaroth) as
his mate.  1 Kings 18:26-28 describes pagan ritual.  Nb 25:1-9 refers to
the early seduction of the Israelites from worship of Yahweh to worship of
the golden calf, referred to also in Hos 9:10 and Ps 106:19-23.  References
to later apostasies appear in Jg 2:11, 13 and 6:25,31; 1 Kings 16:31-32;
18:19; 19:10,14,18; 22:54; and 2 Kings 3:2-3; 10:18-28, among others, until
YHWH said, "Even Judah will I put out of my sight as I did Israel.  I will
reject this city, Jerusalem", and permitted the Babylonian captivity (2
Kings 23:27).

	*** Clarinet articles may not be forwarded outside Digital ***

	Date: Sun, 8 Aug 93 3:59:39 PDT

	NEW DELHI (UPI) -- A 4-year-old girl was sacrificed by a rural
landlord before a tribal goddess in northern India to ward off evil
spirits, the Press Trust of India reported Sunday.

	Tunu Murmu was killed Friday in a village near the city of
Jamshedpur, 140 miles (225 km) west of Calcutta, by a prosperous farmer
who wanted to propitiate the goddess, the news agency said.

	The child was ritually bathed in a pond before her body was pierced
by arrows and offerred to the deity, PTI said.

	The farmer was arrested by a local court, the report said.

There were goddess cults with common characteristics in many primitive
cultures -- those of Tiamet in Babylon, Isis in Egypt, Ishtar in Akkadia,
Inanna in Sumeria, Astarte in Syria, Aphrodite, Diana, and Kor� (Persephone)
in Greece -- all figures in dualist fertility cults, of which, some claim,
European witchcraft may have been a folk-level corruption.  Consistent in
the old myths is the Great Goddess or Great Mother as female life force,
representative of fertility and appearing in the "triple aspect" of maiden-
mother-crone.  In the annual religious cycle, she bore a son (in winter,
usually at the solstice) who became her lover (May Day), impregnated her,
then died or was sacrificially killed by the goddess at the firstfruits
festival, to be reborn as her son.  In primitive cults, the high priestess
as an earthly incarnation of the goddess annually took a young consort,
symbolic of the son/lover (the Horned God), who was ritually sacrificed (in
later times he was castrated or an animal substituted) at the end of the
year.  The goddess was one of many deities, all of them forces to be
placated.  The term "grim reaper", for example, originated in pagan
England, where, according to English scholar Joanna Bogle, the last
harvester in the field was ritually killed as a blood offering to the earth
as Mother Goddess so that she would bear again the next season.  In a more
colloquial description, feminist Robin Morgan has said, "Witches were the
first Friendly Heads and Dealers, the first birth-control practitioners and
abortionists".  (WITCH Documents: New York Covens, Sisterhood is Powerful,
New York, Random House, 1970, 539)

How closely contemporaty witchcraft may resemble that of the past and to
what extent there is today a defined "thealogy" (because they refer to
a goddess rather than to God, feminists put the word in feminine form)
interpreting it for an "inner circle" of the enlightened are not entirely
clear.  Margot Adler, a "participant-observer" whose book "Drawing Down the
Moon" is the most authoritative internal report on the neo-pagan movement,
says that many "revivalist Witches" invent their own mythic stories,
unconcerned about authenticity or logical consistency because they assume
that psychic experiences are natural phenomena not yet understood; they "do
not believe in a supernatural".  Others follow esoteric theories originated
over the past century by entusiasts whose opinions, if they were ever taken
seriously by scholars, have been discredited.

Radically anti-male "Dianic" groups -- and Matthew Fox -- draw on the
theories of nineteenth-century anthropologist J.J. Bachofen, who held that
Stone Age European societies centered on the worship of Mother Earth lived
in matriarchal harmony until patriarchal males seized power some five
thousand years before Christ. (Relition, Myth, and Mother Right)  Elizabeth
Gould Davis popularized much the same views in "The First Sex" in 1971.

	Good grief, just when you thought..................

	Never mind, I give up.	%^(

Theosophy, the enormously influential strand of nineteenth-century
occultism founded by Helena Petrovana Blavatsky, not only survives but
flourishes today in the strange but widely popular blend of gnosticism,
spiritualism, and scientism called the New Age movement.  While New Age
involvement is considered less bizarre than witchcraft, little in fact
separates the two, and devotees often dabble in both simultaneously. 
Occult author Isaac Bonewits, who claims to be a Druid priest, explains
that traditional witches always concealed their beliefs under "more
respectable" coloration (Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism in the 18th
century, Spiritualism and Theosophy in the 19th") while continuing to
practice the same "occult arts".  ("Witchcraft", Part III, Green Egg 9, no.
79, June 21, 1976)  Starhawk calls the goddess movement "a New Age revival"
of witchcraft; at Matthew Fox's Institute, where she teaches, witchcraft
blends easily into a predominantly New Age curriculum.  According to
neo-Pagan priestess Adler:

    There is a funny saying in the Pagan movement: "The difference
    between a Pagan and `new age' is one decismal point."  In other
    words, a two-day workshop in meditation by a "new age" practitioner
    might cost $300, while the same course given by a Pagan might cost $30.
				("Drawing Down the Moon, p.420)

The most monstrous of the neo-pagan innovators was Aleister Crowley, who
died in 1964.  According to historians of occultism, he was a heroin addict
and a frenetically promiscuous bi-sexual, too decadent even for the turn-of-
the-century English occultists in the Hermetic "Order of the Golden Dawn",
who expelled him.  He set up a perverse "abbey of satanic occultism,
dissipated his life in systematic practices of vilest "sex magic" and left
behid a trail of women degraded and terrified into madness.

Most current followers of "the Craft" insist that it is a benign nature
cult, concerned with subjective psychological development (the expansion of
"human potential") and preservation of the environment, having nothing to
do with statanism, sorcery, drug use or horrifying sexual orgies.  Insofar
as that is true, neo-paganism might be regarded as the practice of comparative
religion.  But it inspires little confidence in such protestations of innocence
to learn that Gardner's widely used rituals were written in collaboration with
Crowley or that the well-known English "white witch" Sybil Leek praised
Crowley's "contribution to occultism" on the cover of Francis King's chilling
biography of the man.  In her noteworthy book "The Changing of the Gods",
Naomi Goldenberg, a feminist who teaches the psychology of religion at the
University of Ottawa, mentions "the expression of sexuality in the ritual"
without elaboration, adding later that "witchcraft lets  sex follow its own
laws to a very large degree".  With a calm Christian readers are unlikely
to share, Margot Adler admits that some Wicca groups do employ sexual acts,
including the "Great Rite", but she indicates that such ritual practices
are rare and finds them not at all horrifying.  "In its highest form", when
priestess and priest "through ritual ... have drawn down into themselves
these archetypal forces", to "`incarnate' or _become_" the goddes and god,
the Great Rite is "a sublime religious experience", she says.  (Drawing Down
the Moon, pp.110, 143, 309)

    yeah, who wants to clutter their brain with this.....obviously the
    author is working out some kind of karmic hangup......

	Anyone feel john thrives on stuff like this?

    well yes, i can only suppose its a way of expiating perceived sins....

perceived sins by perceived christians.... hmmmmm

    RE: Crowley based on Israel Regardie
    
    	It's the other way around. Regardie's rebirth of the Golden Dawn
    was inspired by Crowley's order .'. .'. (known in some circles as the
    Argentium Atrum.) Regardie was a pupil of Crowley. Regardie wrote the
    book "The Golden Dawn", and also edited the compendium  "Gems from The
    Equinox" (the Equinox was Crowley's occult magazine.)
    
    Now, let me make one thing clear. I am *not* the resident Satanist. I'm
    more Christian than anything. For the most part, I consider religion to
    be an interesting spectator sport. I am more interested in the history
    and mythology behind most religions than I am in participating in them.
    Therefore, I will not engage in debate with anyone over religion. I am
    not in the business of defending any particular religion. I have,
    however, studied dozens of religious paths, read thousands of books on
    the subject and can make factual statements about the beliefs of those
    religions. Oddly enough, the only organized religion I have ever
    belonged to -- the Catholic Church -- so alienated me that I have
    purposely avoided learning its doctrine. So, there is one example where
    I admit self-imposed blissful ignorance.
    
    I'm responding to this note without reading the rest of the replies
    after Mary-Michael's. I can imagine that there's a lot of stuff about
    God being "the one" blah, blah, blah. Fine. Wonderful.
    
    I will tell you what Satanism is, and what it is not. Other than that,
    I don't give a rat's ass, so don't come bugging me looking for another
    convert to the "one true way".
    
    Satanism is not what most people would call Witchcraft, although it is
    a pagan, polytheistic sect. The dieties are different, however, both
    are very much "nature" religions. There are two main "churches" in
    Satanism. The Church of Satan (CoS), which was founded and is headed
    by Anton Svendor Lavey, and the Temple of Set (ToS) which is a splinter
    group from the CoS. Now, contrary to popular opinion, neither the CoS
    or the ToS worship Satan. I repeat, they do not worship Satan. So, why
    are they considered "Satanists." Because that's what everyone else
    called them, and it so infuriated the fundies -- which they consider a
    good thing -- that they actually took it up as a badge of honor. ToS
    and CoS are religions based on the concept of Will, and the fulfillment
    of Will (this is where the Crowley connection to Satanism is made.) Tos
    and CoS believe that God and Satan are one, i.e. they are dualists.
    They believe that there is a host of minor dieties that also serve
    specific purposes and that could roughly be described as "angels and
    demons". Using an exercise of Will, known as a Rite, the "magician"
    communicates with the diety who's nature is closest to that of the
    magician's Will. In other words, if it is the magician's Will to boink
    some particular person, the angel of boinking is a nice place to start
    (this is an over-simplification, but it illustrates the point.)
    
    Rites can take on any number of forms, from those practiced as a
    group, to those practiced individually (Tarot readings are an
    exampleof individual rites). Some of the rites have a sexual
    element, since the release of sexual energy (the kundalini) is
    considered one of the most efficient expressions of will. Even
    those rites which do not overtly include sexual acts tend to
    include it in the symbolic sense. The Cup, or chalice, is a
    symbol of the womb, the Wand is a symbollic phallus. Animal blood
    is used in some rites, but certainly not all. Of the handful of
    rites that I have read about which involve human blood, it is
    always from the participants in the rite itself, given freely,
    resulting from non-life-threating cuts to the forearm and chest.
    I have not read any rite of either the CoS or the ToS which involves
    human sacrifice. In fact, both organization make it absolutely clear
    that no illegal activity (murder, pedophelia, rape, etc.) is to
    be tolerated, and that all participation is 100% voluntary and
    with full understanding before-hand as to the nature of the
    rite.
    
    There are "Satanists" out there who are sociopaths or psychopaths,
    but both CoS and ToS attempt to filter out such elements. Of
    course, the Christian religions have produced their share of
    both -- recent examples include David Koresh and Jim Jones.
    
    My take on Satanism is that it's a bit schizophrenic, and can't
    decide whether its main purpose is to give Christian fundies
    something to talk about, or a nature religion (ala Wicca). There
    is, surprisingly, quite a bit of scholarship associated with
    the CoS and ToS. Both maintain huge libraries of religous
    documents of all kinds. which are made available to members through
    an ambitious "lending library" type of program.
    
    Now, back to Crowley. Let's see. Start with a basic demagogue
    who knew how to push the right buttons (like calling himself
    the beast who was "666" -- which he couldn't have been unless
    he was right about reincarnation, now could he? -- throw in
    some Freud inspired drug abuse (both cocaine and heroine),
    a large dose of Freemasonry, Buddhism and Christianity, some
    Egyptian and Roman mythology, a legendary sexual appetite,
    and a Cambridge education and you have a character that the
    fundies are still talking about. But what Crowley did was
    simple: he brought true scholarship to the occult. Simply
    put, the man was very well read. Like some of his contemporaries,
    including Mdm Blavatsky, G.I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky,
    he was experimenter in world religion, who fused elements
    like meditation, ritual and self-discipline into a cohesive
    system for "working on oneself". The fact that the Christian
    right can see only the facade which Crowley so carefully
    maintained is no reflection on the quality of his work.
    
    -b

  >>      There are "Satanists" out there who are sociopaths or psychopaths,
  >>      but both CoS and ToS attempt to filter out such elements. Of
  >>      course, the Christian religions have produced their share of
  >>      both -- recent examples include David Koresh and Jim Jones.
    
    To briefly address this, Both David Koresh and Jim Jones claimed to be
    God themselves.  This is absolutely polarized from what Christianity
    is; therefore, your statement doesn't have any creedance.  They used
    the bible and that's probably why you equate them with Christianity.
    
    To Mary Michael...your exhortation to me is unfounded.  I didn't make
    fun of Crowley, I didn't ridicule his beliefs.  I merely pointed out
    what I thought his beliefs were in the Introduction topic.  Then in
    this topic I stated it was said that he is a Satanist and was asking
    for more information.
    
    By the way, I wonder who Hitler was inspired by...being an occultist
    and all!
    
    -Jack

    re: .31
    
    ...is correct and is a far more thorough rendering than I could
    have given.
    
    The one Satanist I've ever spoken with, told me that Satanism
    was more people who felt no shame in being successful and taking
    what the world had to offer, and using their powers to enhance
    that success. They also reiterated that they do not condone any
    illegal activity.
    
    re: .32
    
    I don't believe I intended my note to chastise you for ridicule,
    which I do not believe you did.  I was responding more to the
    rather quick knee-jerk you had in the Intro, which came across
    as a rather "Christian hard-liner response."
    
    Mary-Michael

    John,
    
    why don't you move the pagan stuff into a pagan note?  This note is
    about Satanists which is merely a reverse of another death cult.  

    	re .34
    
    	You know, when I see stuff like that from you, all I can think
    	of is a football player who quits one team to join another, and
    	then trash-talks the team he just left...

| <<< Note 67.35 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| You know, when I see stuff like that from you, all I can think
| of is a football player who quits one team to join another, and
| then trash-talks the team he just left...


	I can think of a dem who just did this. I think he's a repub right now.

    	Nothing wrong with switching, Glen.  When he starts trash-talking
    	I'll agree with you.

	Joe, what were his reasons for switching? 

    Joe,
    
    this is the Satanists note, not the pagan note.  Tht is what I am
    pointing out.
    
    If you want to debate paganism, move it over to a note that doesn't
    address christianity, albeit a perverted form.  those who don't believe
    in your particular dieties, angels, meesiahs, or whatever really
    shouldn't be lumped in with those who do.
    
    meg

>    If you want to debate paganism, 
    
    	I want nothing of the sort.  I was specifically commenting on
    	the some of things you write, and especially the way you write 
    	them.  Nothing more.

    All this stuff on Aleister Crowley  merely proves that men will say and
    do anything to get laid. 

    
    
    That theory has been proved over and over again....this is
    what we call 'confirmation of proof'.   :*)
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    >All this stuff on Aleister Crowley  merely proves that men will say and
    >do anything to get laid. 
    
    Are you referring to Crowley himself, or to the people who were talking
    about him?  Either way, it is a complete nonsequitor.
    
    -b

Non sequitur.

For those who choose to observe God's commandment to have no other gods but
God, the worship of pagan idols is the worship of demons.

	"They made him jealous with
	    strange gods,
	   with abhorrent things they
	    provoked him.
	"They sacrificed to demons, not
	    God."
	 
It is the deceiver himself who plays on people's pride and foolishness and
leads them astray and away from the Shepherd of Israel.

/john

	My roomate rented the faces of death, or something like that last
night. It showed one cult who thought they would have immortality IF they were
to eat the organs of a dead person. They had this guy laying there dead, and
they sat around while the leader cut him open. They pulled out the inards and
ate them, and then had an orgy. Blood was all over everyones bodies, and they
were getting it on. This is supposed to make them live forever? 

	Another cult group had a bunch of poisonous snakes that they passes
around. If you were bitten, then you were free from your sins. It ended up they
were free from their lives too..... 

	OOOOOooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I got to rent that movie....%^)

    Oh no. I sense that if I say anything here that I become the resident
    Satanist. But look... there are people who take the doctrine of many
    religions, twist it in bizarre ways and produce their own whacked out
    attempt at enlightenment. As I pointed out yesterday -- a point that
    was entirely missed -- twisted interpretations are not the sole
    provence of Satanists. David Koresh and the people you described Glen
    have one thing in common -- they're cracked.
    
    -b

    -b
    
    Could you recommend a few good books on this topic. Most of the books
    I've read on alternative religions have been very heavily biased, and
    many on the occult and wicca seemed more like step by step cook books.
    
    
    Thanks in advance 
    
    Brian V
    

    Depends on what you mean by "this topic". The overall topic includes
    books on current practices (Wicca, Satanism, etc.), the history of these
    practices, Magick, Tarot, Quaballah, Talismans, Divination, symbollic
    systems (runes and hieroglyphs), Meditation, related philosophies
    (Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism, etc.), biographies of various individuals,
    books on the "Hermetic Orders" (including various books on Freemasonry),
    various Grimoires, non-occult systems of attainment and enlightenment
    such as the "Fourth Way", the Christian's perspective on the occult,
    etc. etc. etc.
    
    Narrow down your request and I'd be glad to help.
    
    -b

    Wicca, CoS, Druids.
    
    What I am looking for is a decent description of beliefs....something
    akin to the Christian bible.
    
    Also something about the history of these orders that could show which
    groups came from which and why they separated.
    
    
    	Brian V
    

    Try anything by isaac bonowitz, founder of the American Reformed
    Druids.  also a magazine called Gnostica.

    >Wicca, CoS, Druids.
    
    >What I am looking for is a decent description of beliefs....something
    >akin to the Christian bible.
    
    For the CoS, this would have to be Lavey's "Satanic Bible." Now, I want
    to make it clear that I am not endorsing this book. I am not a Satanist,
    but if you want to know what the Satanists are all about, a good place
    to start is with the book written by the head of their "church"...
    
    As for Druids, well, here's my cut at that. Forget the Druids per se.
    Seek out some of the books about Celtic Magick. Close, but not Druids.
    Here's why:
    
    The general concensus among all magical teachings is that the symbols
    and the rituals are pretty much trappings, and the real key is the
    forces in nature... there are many "systems" for tapping these sources.
    The Druids had very efficient mechanisms for tapping these sources.
    They were also barbaric. A large part of the true Druid tradition would
    be outright illegal today. So, what you have is "watered down Druids"
    who can't legally practice a major portion of the magickal system upon
    which they base their beliefs. On the other hand, some of the other
    Celtic magical systems were far more benign and yet remain equally as
    potent as the Druid system.
    
    >Also something about the history of these orders that could show which
    >groups came from which and why they separated.
    
    Part of the problem with this is that, like many religions, there tends
    to be some competition between "sects". Getting a straight answer as to
    who begat who can be pretty difficult. Many of these schisms are too
    recent in history, and occurred under less-than-amicable cicumstances.
    The whole thing tends to be kept under a veil of secrecy too.
    
    This is less a problem if your interest is in the hermetic orders such
    as the Golden Dawn, O.T.O, BOTA, Freemasons, Argentinium Astrum,
    etc. But you still need to do a little digging. The book "The Golden
    Dawn" by Israel Regardie has some of this information, as does the
    "Gems from the Equinox".
    
    The first thing I would recommend though is asking around on the
    internet newsgroups such as alt.magick and alt.pagan. There's
    quite a few other related newsgroups. However, a word of warning
    is in order: the signal to noise ratio on these groups can be
    very low... and it's the time of year when college newbies are
    still feeling their way around, which makes it worse. Last year,
    alt.magick had one bafoon who was challenging people to black
    magic duels to the death, another who claimed he was the Pendragon
    (i.e. Arthur) reincarnated, another who claimed she was a godess
    who was sent to enlighten oppressed lesbians and prepare her sisters
    for the "uprising" in which they would overthrow the oppressor (who
    seemed to include anyone foolish enough to rent this person an
    appartment), and of course, there's always a thumper "you're all
    going to hell for even reading this newsgroup" thread. Like the
    soapbox, there's even an initiation rite: you aren't part of
    alt.magick until Josh Keller tells you to "go away."
    
    -b

    Satanic Horse-Whippers

    
    
    	ON YOUR KNEES YOU WORTHLESS SCUM.
    
    I am the Hell God Quorthon the Multilator and present is my vice-demon\
    is Bigrichiol the Slayer of Homo's.
    
    We have come from the Planet Monkeyspanker to abuse your Farmyard
    animals.
    This is an ancient ritual for us and the real reason the Polar icecaps
    are melting.
    
    Sent us money immediately to join the Quorton/Bigrichiol spanker club.
    
    			May your nuts be squeezed by a train.
    
    						yours'
    
    
    							Quorthon.
     

    That was WONderful!!  Don't ever stop!!! (swilling that joyjuice
                                              thattiz)!
    

    Hi Quorthon,                                     
               My Hell-name is Gullabilio and I would wish to join the evil
    forces of darkness with you and Bigrichiol,I have loads of cash as i'm
    a demon prostitute with 5 nipples.Together we shall embark on world
    domination and farmyard abuse,unlike yourself I am from the planet
    Turd but I know of monkeyspanker and it's view on farmyard animals.
    The planet turd population prefer Domesticated tortoises.
               I hope you except my offer of partnership and we can spank
    all day (as it will be written in the great book)
    P.s May your monkeys always be rigid.
    
    
                                          Gullabilio.

	WE should note that .55 violates the P&P proscription against 
	solicitations.

	The Moderators must be under the thrall of an evil spell.

	;-)

Jim

    You lot act like 5 year olds. I don't care if you are enjoying it
    but just don't enjoy it here. 
    
    go, be off with you

	Hey, one thing I wanna warn you Demons about. Stay away from the sheep!
Gene is one human force that will be able to stop you! If you stay away from
the sheep, he probably won't bother you. Just toast a few dims and he'll be
happy. But DON'T, and I mean DON'T, touch the sheep.


Glen

    
    
    i have to admit, i just love the feel of satan...so soft and smooth
    next to your skin...
    
    

    
    {ahem} satIn, raqhoney.  satIn.
    
    oh dear.

    Raq is Satan's concubine??!!

	Oooooooooooooooh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

	That would explain a lot..................%^]

    
    i'll never tell...
    
    
    >%^>
    
    

    I've known many sedan worshipers...

    <---- Hey! That's me! I freely admit I am a black sedan worshipper.  
    
    Brian

    <- VW's don't count as sedans... You still drive a VW, doncha?

    No Chip, I don't TYVM.  I graduated to something that is REALLY
    expensive to fix :-).  Just ask Mr. Celi.
    
    Brian

    <- Not the "C" word! :-)
    
    Chip

    We probably aren't allowed to use the C word in the box.

    <- "Celica?" :-)

| <<< Note 67.72 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Perdition" >>>

| We probably aren't allowed to use the C word in the box.

	Why Can't we?

    No, not the "C" word.  The "S" word :-)
    
    

    .55
    
    I can't believe that what I've read here and in .57 is allowed in this
    conference to stay...  on second thought yes I can.
    
    This is NOT humor... it is NOT in good taste.  It is simply and most
    abhorrantly trash.   
    
    Father in Heaven,
    
    I ask that you would help those who are in darkness.  Lord, I ask for
    your protection and covering of Christ to the hearts and minds of those
    who love You.  Lord I ask that you would help me to be loving, kind and
    considerate regardless of my human reactions.  Father, I know that you
    are God and that your Son Christ came not to destroy to be save a
    people who's heart would be turned to you.
    
    Thank you Father, for being a part of my life.  I praise you for your
    goodness and for your mercy on mankind.  In Jesus Name I pray, Amen.
    
    
    

    its rather sad, seeing such a colossally obvious windup taken
    seriously.
    
    DougO

	RE .76

	Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, I don't want
to be saved.......

re .77

Nancy recognized it as a windup -- but she said she didn't think it
was funny, but rather that it was total trash.

/john

    .76 ho!ho! Superb. 
    
    "Dad,what is regret?"
    
    "Son,it is far better to regret something you have done,than to regret
    something you haven`t done".
    
    "and by the way...if you see your mother,be sure to say
    SATAN!SATAN!SATAN!"
    
    

    I have a Satan story.  Being a good leetle catholic altar boy, and very
    religious when I was about 9 years old, I was visiting Philadelphia and
    participated in high mass on Christmas day.  This is the definition of
    a "Big Deal".  And this is the biggest parish in the city.  I was
    merely one of the 100 or so peripheral angelic looking servers, there
    merely to make the Big Deal BIGGER.  There were about 150 altar boys,
    and more than a dozen priests.  BIG deal.
    
    We were arranged by height, and me being the second shortest, my place
    ended up being just inside the rail, adjacent to the break on the main
    aisle.  Smack, dead, center.  The shortest guy, Billy, was on the
    other side of the aisle.
    
    We were told there would be a deacon.  I had no clue what a "deacon"
    was, but they told us not to be concerned when a lay person approached. 
    So, the BIG DEAL mass carries on with much ado and after some time we
    get to the holy sacrament part.  
    
    Well, this guy walks up a few minutes before, and stands in the aisle
    between me and Billy.  I could have picked his pocket, he was that
    close.  He was in a suit, and had a bible.  I thought, "oh, he must be
    this deacon character..."  He's mumbling on, praying or something, and
    I'm kind of waiting for him to DO something (bad move, really).  I
    mean, like, HEY, we're getting to the CLImax of this whole big deal,
    right?
    
    So, as Father Cannon raises the host to the tabernacle in consecration,
    this clown standing right next to me throws his bible down and yells
    out...
    		" I....AM.......SSSSAAAAAATAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!"
    
    Now to my little nine year old catholic educated altar boy mind, the
    ONLY entity who could get away with screaming that in St. Monicas on
    Christmas day at high mass and not be immediately struck by lightning,
    was, of course, Satan hisself.  I believe him with all my heart, and
    figured we were gonna have it out between God and the Devil right
    there, with me standing at ground zero.  I was not a happy person,
    right then.
    
    Well, the mass went on, and this guy keeps on yelling as the usher
    picked him up and carried him away, kicking and screaming stuff like
    "Let me DOWN! I COMMAND THEE!" and cursing their progeny and all kinds
    of nasty things.
    
    Afterwards, I was congratulated for helping the ushers subdue this
    twit.  I was actually telling them to let him go, or else he was gonna
    fry their butts.
    
    Well, he didn't, and ever since then I haven't believed this satan
    character is all he's cracked up to be...
    
    True story, I didn't make a bit of this up.

| <<< Note 67.76 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I can't believe that what I've read here and in .57 is allowed in this
| conference to stay...  on second thought yes I can. This is NOT humor... it 
| is NOT in good taste.  It is simply and most abhorrantly trash.

	And you are over reacting. With your philosophy, you can't possibly
have any joke/humor topic in the CHRISTIAN notesfile, as it would APPEAR that
intent has nothing to do with anything. Who is being harmed here Nancy??

	Chip, a Christmas to remember.... :-)

re .81

The real deceiver is much craftier, much more subtle, than the poor demented
man off the street.

/john

    Right.
    
    Look what happened to Lee Remick and Gregory Peck in the Omen.

    Doug,
    
    I do recognize it as a windup... but let me ask you, how would you
    react if someone began calling your mate a prostitute, a *itch or worse
    all for the sake of supposed poignant humor?
    
    Would you find it humorous?  
    
    I find those notes to be in the same vein as the above.  I don't expect
    you to agree, but surely you understand.
    
    Nancy

    >-< Why'd you go after .76 rather than, say, .59? >-
                   
    .59 had the good manners not to pray at us.
    
    DougO

>the good manners not to pray at us.

Yeah.

Talking about all sorts of sexual perversions is OK, but say a prayer,
and suddenly it's no longer good manners.

/john

    
    Well, my dad always told me never to discuss religion or politics, but
    he didn't mention sexual perversions...
    
    

	Well, what's perversion to some is delight to others ......




	Are we back down this rat hole, I thought the Box represented
various points of view. If you don't like it, "NEXT UNSEEN".
I have to do it all the time on subjects I disagree on.

	deb.... that was a classic!

    I didn't pray *at* anyone... you own that one, DougO.
    
    :-)  I prayed to God.. and for those that *love* him... if you fall in
    that category then I prayed FOR you.  And most importantly for myself.
    

    > I didn't pray *at* anyone.
    
    No, you describe a joke note as disgusting trash and in the next breath
    type in your prayer for the delectation of all soapbox readers.  You
    prayed at us, sweetie, but never mind.
    
    DougO

    	Hmmm.  And was anything offensive in that prayer?

    

     This should be the right note to put this in.


     For Sale:30 quid


     One goat.  2 years old.Excellent for use in sacrifice,Only thing is
    I can't guarantee that it's a virgin.
    
    
     MAIL.....BHUNA::JTOBIN
     
    
    
    

    Also for sale:
    
                  ONE GENUINE 100% BAWBAG
    		  (with free sheep)
                  See previous note.
    Has dark magical powers. Give it a good rub & you'll be under the
    nautious cobra's spell.
    
    Damien.

    <- I'll take two...

    
    
    Greetings from the Dark side,
    
       The goat mentioned in note -97 is no longer for sale how can i 
       part with Satan's little helper she has been a loyal worshipper
       of the dark side from the day it was born.(she's also into Pink
       Floyd which is scary).
    
       Also a quick hello to Quorthon long time no sacrifice neebur..
    
       Contact SNEIL for anything to do with the dark side and other 
       various Satanic worship( He's has got the twelve inch version
       of Salmans Rushdies Satanic rights on compact disc $12. five 
       percent discount if you show your Digital badge.)
    
            May your God watch your soul  hehehehewhhhhhaaaaaoooooorrr..
                                             
                                                  J@.

re: .76, .86, Nancy

I see we now have at least one vote in favor of the opinion "Evil beings to
be fearful of, decimators of pure faith". I'm surprised it took this long
to get a taker.

re: .81, Mike

Great story!

    .101
    
    
    what???  I have no clue what you are talking about...
    
    I am unable to keep up with *most* of this conference... I saw this
    realized it was an attempt at humor... but found it humorless.
    
    So what's the beef?  I suppose I could have silently hit next unseen,
    but I didn't....
    
    Nancy

I was referring to the basenote in which I asked whether Satan worshippers
were fearful beings or a bunch of hoooey. It appears from your prayer
that you place some credence in them. Thanks for playing.

    The only thing Satan worshippers are good for is a good bit of 
    bashing. Great fun !!
    
    shall I smile..... naaaa.

    Satan Worshippers fearful beings..
    
    I don't know... the secret rituals performed to Satan have been
    described as always using blood sacrifices... and not just of animals..
    children were being abducted and uses in such sacrifices in L.A. a few
    years back..
    
    Judge for yourself!

    Mostly, Satan Worship is a great deal of silliness. For its mirror
    image watch TBN. It's all the same thing really.
    
    All this stuff about "secret rituals" is a bit of Geraldo and a bit
    of partisan political bickering. The reality is that it's easy to find
    whackos under any rock, including those that would ruthlessly exploit
    children. Arguably, if the Satanists are doing the things that Geraldo
    or Fennholt claim they're doing, at least they've got the moral high
    ground, as they do it to please their God instead of themselves.
    
    -b

    .106
    
    I disagree with you... As a Christian, I've been involved in several
    situations where Satan Worship was an issue with which I've dealt.
    
    This is no game or silliness, it is real... you can choose to believe
    what you want.  IMO, you make light of something in which you have no
    knowledge or even perhaps you need to make light of it for your own
    personal reasons...but either way, I disagree.
    
    

    It is certainly a subject I know a great deal about, and I wasn't
    making light. You missed my point entirely. I do not think this
    stuff is funny. It may be silly. But that is not the same as
    funny.
    
    How many other people you know that have read the complete rites
    of both the CoS and ToS, the largest operating Satanist organizations?
    I have. I can quote you exact Liber text in Golden Dawn and other
    hermetic literature from which much of this is drawn. As I mentioned
    earlier, there is nothing in either organization which encourages the
    practices you mention. Nothing. The Satanist organizations (as well
    as a wide variety of new age crackpots) liberally borrowed from decent
    scholarly attempts (like GD) at understanding certain mysteries,
    packaged it in a commercial sense, and whored themselves until they had
    all the credibility of Robert Tilton... they just claim to serve a
    different master.
    
    Further, there are pockets of sick people. Mostly sick individuals.
    They go off on their own, "invent" what they think is the right
    way to go about things, get even more psychotic and eventually
    come crying to the Christian sects for rescuing from their own
    stupidity. These people would not have a _prayer_ of getting
    into any real hermetic order because, frankly, we can smell them
    coming a mile away. They invent their own version of what they
    think we're up to (because there's no way we're going to tell
    them), sprinkle in a bit of their own psychotic delusion, and
    then, for a fee of course, can find any number of people to
    help disabuse them. The reason why hermetic orders operate in
    secret is _not_ because they have anything to hide, it is because
    there is an endless litany of bozos with mental problems who
    fancy themselves wizards. When they fail to get anywhere with
    us, they come to you and invent stories about what we did to
    them. Thruth is, the worst we did was send them packing.
    
    And, in case you missed this previously, I _am not_ a Satanist.
    If I was, I'd tell you. I'm not. I just know a lot (too much
    really) about them.
    
    I have no doubt there are people abducting children in the name
    of Satan. Nuts is nuts. But Satan has not cornered the market.
    
    -b

    .108
    
    Interestingly, I knew this was where it was leading... my own words
    from .107:
    
    >even perhaps you need to make light of it for your own
    >personal reasons.....
    
    You contradict yourself in your note.. perhaps you could clarify
    something for me?
    
    >Further, there are pockets of sick people. Mostly sick individuals.
    >They go off on their own, "invent" what they think is the right
    >way to go about things, get even more psychotic and eventually
    >come crying to the Christian sects for rescuing from their own
    >stupidity. These people would not have a _prayer_ of getting
>>>>    into any real hermetic order because, frankly, we can smell them
    >coming a mile away. They invent their own version of what they
>>>>    think we're up to (because there's no way we're going to tell
    >them), sprinkle in a bit of their own psychotic delusion, and
    >then, for a fee of course, can find any number of people to
    >help disabuse them. The reason why hermetic orders operate in
    >secret is _not_ because they have anything to hide, it is because
    >there is an endless litany of bozos with mental problems who
    >fancy themselves wizards. When they fail to get anywhere with
>>>>    us, they come to you and invent stories about what we did to
>>>>    them. Thruth is, the worst we did was send them packing.
    
    Who is we and us... if
    
>>>>    And, in case you missed this previously, I _am not_ a Satanist.
    >If I was, I'd tell you. I'm not. I just know a lot (too much
    >really) about them.
    

    Clarity then:
    
    I have known many people who have had minor brushes with hermetic
    orders (Golden Dawn, OTO, Temple of Thelema, BOTA -- none of
    which are Satanists), who have failed to get past the interview
    process for admission. Often they come to these orders believing
    that the orders are Satanists... or at least they believe all of
    the nonsense (and it really is nonsense) about so-called "black
    magic". Failing to even get their foot in the door, and having
    severely flawed personalities which prevented them from doing so,
    they become very inventive. I have seen these same people show
    up in Christian churches (I am a Christian, by the way), with
    wild tales of Satanic ritual. I have seen the finger pointed at
    many organizations, including the Masons, as being Satanists.
    
    Even you're falling for the trap, to a certain extent. You
    find my use of the terms "we" and "not Satanist" contradictory.
    It's not. I have nothing to do with Satanism. Does reading about
    it and making an attempt to truly understand it make me a
    Satanist? I'll tell you one thing: it surely makes me a rare
    duck in Christian circles! But I'm not gonna lie: my opinion,
    based on experience, is that most people who _claim_ to be
    "ex-Satanists" have no idea what a Satanist is when you really
    ask them. If they ever made the grade of even neophyte 0=0
    in any such organization, they will know certain things which,
    inevitably, they never do.
    
    -b

    P.S. to previous: typing troubles.
    
    
    After: But I'm not gonna lie... was supposed to be, "I have never nor
    do I ever intend to be a practicing Satanist, so I don't know
    everything there is to know (obviously) about being a Satanist, but...
    after which I explained that I _do_ know enough to know the wheat from
    the chaffe.
    
    -b

    re .108
    
      >How many other people you know that have read the complete rites
      >of both the CoS and ToS,
    
    Do you have a social life ?

Sure he does, Martin.

BTW - when are you going to quit using MacKenzie's account and get your own?

    When these personages hurry up and sort it out !!! I think
    it will be by the end of this week.

    .110 and .111
    
    
    Did anyone understand the explanations in the above notes?
    
    I didn't. The language usage of we and us typically means inclusive of
    writer...  but this writer now says it's not inclusive.  I'm still
    confused.
    
    Markey,
    The bottom line is your reality and my reality are not in check.  
    There is black magic and for you to declare there isn't shows more
    naivety than my gullibility... :-)  and I ain't no bird.
    

| <<< Note 67.96 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>


| Hmmm.  And was anything offensive in that prayer?


	Take your prayer to school please......the box is not a place for
prayer! Seperation between church and box is the ammendment I am referring to.

	Maybe the box could use a prayer Glen.......%^)

	After all, we are all on a wing and a prayer in here...%^O

>    There is black magic

Uh-oh . . . . 

    Hmmm.  Separation of Church and box.  Could we add that to the
    local copy of the Bill or Rights?  Pleeeeeeeeyuzzzzz??  :-)
    
    On second thought, isn't that already in the bylaws of several
    religious organs^Hizations?
    
    |-{:-)
    

	I prefer good old Jamaican VooDoo, It doesn't get
any blacker than that......%^)

| <<< Note 67.107 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I disagree with you... As a Christian, I've been involved in several 
| situations where Satan Worship was an issue with which I've dealt.

	Nancy, what situations have you delt with?

| IMO, you make light of something in which you have no knowledge or even 
| perhaps you need to make light of it for your own personal reasons

	Nancy, to make light of something isn't always in good taste. That is
true. If it is directed at someone, you'd have a very good case. But when it's
just in general terms, I don't think you really have one. Because humor really
is making light of situations most of the time. I know you have a sense of
humor, so do you see what I am saying? 


Glen

| <<< Note 67.117 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "On a binge....." >>>


| Maybe the box could use a prayer Glen.......%^)

	OXYMORON ALERT!!  OXYMORON ALERT!!  

    Nancy, I for one had no trouble following Brian's train of thought.  He
    possibly has not revealed all of his spritiual affiliations but it is
    quite clear to me that he denounces satanists and satanism.  I also
    understood that the group(s) he has affiliation with are stereotypically 
    misconstrued as being satanist.  I agree with much of what he wrote
    regarding the practice to be silly or whacked.  He has also taken the
    time to understand the other side of the coin if not for enlightnement
    but figure out what he may be up against.  I believe that understanding
    what your enemies are about and up to makes you stronger.   
    
    By calling self labelled satanists silly does not mean that these 
    individuals are not dangerous.  There are an awful lot of fringe groups
    in any religion that do questionable if not illegal and immoral things to 
    their followers under the guise of leading them to salvation or whatever.  
    Satanists do not have a monopoly on evil.  Unfortunately too many of our 
    esteemed christian leaders are just as perverse and parasitic but in the 
    name of the Holy Father versus the unholy one.  
    
    Brian - not a satanist by any stretch, never have been, never will be.  

    >Nancy, I for one had no trouble following Brian's train of thought.  He
    >possibly has not revealed all of his spritiual affiliations but it is
    >quite clear to me that he denounces satanists and satanism.  I also
    >understood that the group(s) he has affiliation with are stereotypically 
    >misconstrued as being satanist.
    
    Bingo Brian!!!! Spot on!!!!
    
    I am first and foremost a Christian. I am also a member of a hermetic
    (sealed, secret) society whose purpose is to study the mysteries of
    faith. I am neither at liberty nor inclined to name said society;
    we are _not_ on a recruiting drive. :-) :-)
    
    BTW, the society I belong to has as a membership requirement a
    belief in God, and an acknowledgement that man can never be
    God, or like God. It is quite consistent with Christian belief.
    
    And your comments about the danger of Satanists are also correct.
    
    I will write another response this morning if time permits.
    For now, I just wanted to thank Brian for stating clearly
    the points I was trying to make.
    
    -b

    I want to thank Brian for also making clear what you were trying to
    say!
    
    Thanks... and now that I understand... I also understand that which
    you are implying regarding satanism.
    
    Ok... perhaps what I have seen and heard are not the norm????  But
    since you are NOT a part of a group that is satanic doesn't mean that
    you truly have the insight knowlege of groups that are... 
    
    I don't understand how you can conclude that Satan worship doesn't
    include blood sacrifices if you've never been a part of a Satanic
    group?
    
    How do you know about Satanic worship other then reading material?  

    Here's "more of the story"... I think this may be helpful in
    answering some of the questions raised by Nancy in .125.
    
    -b
    -------------------------------------------------------------
I was raised a Catholic. The culmination in my career in Catholicism
was attending Catholic High School. For all four years of high
school, I was required to take religion courses. In my junior year,
I took a course called "Comparative Religion" which was quite excellent.
It inspired me to learn more, and religious study became somewhat
of a "hobby". Midway through the year, we were given a pamphlet on
the subject of Satanism. The Sister who taught the course was quite
liberal and encouraged us to take nothing at face value. So, I decided
to look into what the pamphlet contained.

I went to the library and got some books on the subject of "Black
Magic" which was mentioned prominently in the pamphlet. The books
mostly focused on the same boogeyman themes that the pamphlet did.
According to what I read, the most vile and debauched of all Satanists
was one Aliester Crowley. So, I decided to read some of Crowley's
works to get it "straight from the horse's mouth". The starting point
was Crowley's most famous book: Magick in Theory and Practice.

I read the book with an expectation that it would be a how-to guide
for worshipping Satan, complete -- in my Hollywood-fueled imagination --
with everything I needed to know about frenzied orgies and human
sacrifice. Well, imagine my surprise when Crowley didn't talk about
any of this. What I saw was a system where the individual worked
hard at discipline and attainment using a variety of mechanisms
including meditation, tarot and divination. There was a lot of talk
about "The Great Work" and finding and expressing True Will. Satan,
it seems, was conspicuously absent from most of the work; mentioned
only in the context of being a moderately useful spiritual entity
on the "left side of the path." I was quite disappointed really;
I went looking for the motherlode of Satanic evil, but all I found
was a bunch of people using scholarship to systemize the occult.

Still under the obligation to write a paper on the subject of Satanism,
I sought out another book known as "The Satanic Bible", by Anton
Svendor LaVey, who was by reputation, the current head of the
world Satanic Church. What I found really surprised me. I found
much the same information that I had read in Crowley's book.
In fact, the Satanic Bible was clearly _inspired_ by Crowley, but
yet, now quite the same. It was skewed in some way that I couldn't
put my finger on. But what was clear was that the Satanic Bible
also contained none of the frightening boogeyman stuff. In fact,
it was quite clear that such things were entirely unacceptable.

Then it occurred to me... the difference was in the purpose of
the work itself. To Crowley, it was a system of enlightenment.
To the Satanist, it was a system of earthly gain. Satanism is
a system for getting what you want, be it riches, love or
hurting your enemies.  So there it was, Satanism was quite real,
not as notorious as it was reputed to be, but hardly benevolent
either.

Crowley's "Magick", on the other hand, was about something else,
something higher. I also realized that Crowley preferred that
no one know what he was really up to and used the idea of
"Satanism" and "Black Magic" to keep people at bay; a diversion
if you will.

My interest in the subject remained, after I graduated from High
School. I read other works by Crowley, which led me to other
works derived from Crowley, and works which had inspired Crowley.
In my freshman year in college, I had a most profound realization
on the subject... that the Western Judeo/Christian symbolism
that Crowley used was just that: symbolism, and that he was
really talking about something else that had nothing to do with
the convenient names he placed upon it. I started looking under
various rocks. This was when I obtained and read the complete
theology of the two main "churches" in Satanism. This process
fortified my previous conclusions; "organized" Satanism is, at
best a spiritual dead end.

On the other hand, some of the rocks I picked up yielded interesting
results. Two fairly major discoveries were the methods described
by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (whose system is known as the "Fourth
Way"), and the ancient Jewish mystical tradition known as the
Quaballah. Without the familiar symbols of my Catholic upbringing,
it was difficult to make progress; but I was determined. My search
continued.

Then, one day I stumbled upon a most unusual, but rather ugly
rock. When I looked underneath, I was quite astonished. "We've
been waiting for you" the people under the rock said. "Welcome
friend."

-b

>>rock. When I looked underneath, I was quite astonished. "We've
>>been waiting for you" the people under the rock said. "Welcome
>>friend."

	do these people regenerate if you cut them in half?

    Cute. But to be honest, I don't know. Despite whatever reputation we
    may have had foisted upon us, we generally do not cut things in half.
    :-)
    
    -b

    RE: .127
    
    Nah, they just run for Congress.
    
    

    ... not even a PB&J now and then? :-)

    Ritualistic applications of PB&J are somewhat limited...

	deviled ham then?

    <---- :-) :-) :-) !!!!

    ... Devil Dogs?

    What, you've never heard about the advantages of Network Marketing? :-)
    
    -b

    re: .110
    
    Freemasonry is pantheistic in nature.  Some say it is the muscle behind
    the current globalism movement (NWO), with ties to TC, CFR, World
    Council of Churches and New Age religions.
    
    But that's fodder for a conspiracy topic.  
    
    -steve

    I know of no political agenda in Freemasonry. If it was as you said,
    I'd hardly be welcome though...
    
    -b

RE: 67.137 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum"

> Freemasonry is pantheistic in nature.  Some say it is the muscle behind
> the current globalism movement (NWO), with ties to TC, CFR, World
> Council of Churches and New Age religions.

And the founding of the United States of America as a secular republic.

But that's history.


Phil

    Unfortunately, if true, I doubt that any but the inner circle know of
    the real agenda at hand...and the only way to make inner circle is to
    be chosen by the council.  
    
    The back of your $1 has the symbol of Freemasonry- the pyramid and the
    "all seeing eye" raised above it.  When a new order is as hand, the eye
    will be joined with the rest of the pyramid, symbolizing  completion
    (rumor has it, anyway).
    
    
    -steve

    re: .140
    
    Yes, Freemasonry had an impact on the founding of this nation. 
    However, I disagree that the impact is as you say.  John Adams also
    seems to share my disagreement (and he had a much better understanding
    of our founding documents than either of us):
    
    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It
    is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    
    	SCUM THAT'S NOT WORTHY TO KISS MY FEET
    
    You have been warned .You have taken my name in vain.
    I shall cast you into a pit of eternal darkness.
    Puss ridden sores will infest your body.
    
    Ps. I'm going to bugger your goldfish aswell..
    
    YOU..............
    
    Yes   YOU..........
    
    The girl who utters her pitiful and feeble prayers........
    
    I've got a surprise for you.
    
    It involves a rabid badger and some scotchtape.
    Pray to your God then baby.
    
    This conference is mine
    You shall not defile it by entering your nasty spiteful vomit.
    This note is for you to pay homage to myself and BIGRICHIOL.
    
    
    		ON YOUR KNEES.........
    
    		AND WORSHIP YOUR MASTER.
    
					     QUORTHON the MUTILATOR
    

    moron alert.

    That warning comes a bit late.

You better leave the goldfish alone; you're no match for the RSPCA.

    I'm picturing him thrashing about on top of a fish bowl with a troubled
    goldfish considering escape and certain death.

    Morons can be fun to watch.

    Glenn

    The only justice would be if the goldfish turned out to be a pirahna.  

	did you enjoy it?

    
    Dinsdaaaaalllle!
    

    I don't know if anyone picked up on it or not. But, if your planning
    to bugger goldfishes, you must have one hell (no pun intended) of a 
    small dick.

    ....or very big goldfish.
    
    
    

 re .154

    
    
    YOU ARE CACKERS
    
    My dick is omnipresent... so guess where it is right know....
    
    	Enjoy yor lunch.
    
    					QUORTHON THE MUTILATOR
     

    G A L
    e   i
    t   f
        e
    

    
    
    	re: .157
    
    	Must be the faq that Motorola's taking them over....he's gone off
    the deep end (or shoved his head up his rear end...one of the two).
    
    
    

    SADIN,You are in nearly every conference I have read in the past years
    and you should go back to the nook cafe as that is where you belong,you
    are a total tool and you should find a job as it seems you don't have
    anything to do.
    This is probably why we are being sold off to Motorola.
    To finance your time in notes.
    
    						QUORTHON.
    
                         

<---    No, I think *you're* Example #1 of why you're
	being sold to Motorola.  Hope you weren't in
	the plant the day the prospective buyers took
	a tour.

	I'd hate for the deal to fall through for the
	civilized folk in your site.

    re-1
    You are obviously another american with an opinion and no knowledge of
    the facts behind it.This Fab poached all the best people from every
    other fab in the U.K. I'd say we have the best technical staff in one
    place in this country.This however is the only fab in this country that
    isn't doing too good.
    NEC,Motorola,National,Fujitsu,Plessey and Seagate are all knocking out
    lots of chips and are really prosperous.
    Approx 90% of the staff here came from these Fabs.
    Why is it that DEC are the losers here..?
    Ask yourself that Question.

	
	Why thank you JoJo! kind of you to hose that myopic little insect
down for me...:)

	In regards to me scottish buddy in note .160. Bog off you twit. The fact
that I've never seen your moniker attached to a note that shows a bit of wit
tells me that you're not worth bothering with. Give me a call when you get a
clue....


	lovingly yours,

	jim 

 >    You are obviously another american with an opinion and no knowledge of
 >   the facts behind it.This Fab poached all the best people from every
 >   other fab in the U.K. I'd say we have the best technical staff in one
 >   place in this country.This however is the only fab in this country that
 >   isn't doing too good.

	Wot, you trying to blame poor perfomance on us? Yah, right. When I
worked in FAB4 we prototyped ALPHA and sent the process to Scotland. Because of
low yield in SQF, we went from being an engineering fab to a production fab. We
kept up our end until SQF began yielding reliably.

	The chip market has nothing to do with how efficiently the FAB operates.
It has to do with design and marketing. ALPHA wasn't introduced properly, it's
success was hedged on Windows NT which hasn't done so hot (if you hadn't
noticed), and ALPHA is a DOG with DOS based stuff because it has to emulate the
enviroment. Why do you think Pentium blows ALPHA out of the water for day to day
user stuff?
	
	pull your head out of yer arse man.....

jim

	Oh, and one other thing my little scottish buddy, SHR was sold while it
was MAKING A PROFIT. Areas are being sold to streamline the company. Just
because your fab is being sold, doesn't mean that DEC is going down the tubes.


jim

	Yup, duh, I've only worked in the U.S. side of
	Digital's semiconductor operation for 7 years.

	I only figgered out last week that you can't
	eat them wafers we make.  I don't have me a clue.

    Yes you sent us over the C4 process and it didn't work,Maybe this
    intended to be a production fab but it bloody quickly turned into an
    engineering fab when that process was tried and tested,Little problems
    like C2 polymer and Tungsten(Still bogging),Wrong Thickness dielectrics
    etc.We cleaned the process up for you and made it yield.
    A couple of Friends were at Hudson lately and the feedback we got was
    terrible-NOBODY SEEMS TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL.
    We are being sold because we are a satellite and the mother ship has
    to be protected at all costs.
    

>>> A couple of Friends were at Hudson lately

There were Quakers here?  I missed them!

	I tell ya, I had a couple of the nicest guys I've ever met come over
from your facility. They certainly didn't have your attitude!

	re: process not yielding

	funny, it yielded for us....:*|


jim

    A decent yield on 3 wafers doesn't constitute a mature process.
    Re-2
    as for your comment on quakers-does this not come into the childish
    cack that you keep accusing us of.
    
            Could you both please insert you heads up your rectal cavities
    
                                                         

    
    Let's see.  Brickbats between semi fab joints.  Yep, right note.
    
      bb

    HEY!!

    What the hell is wrong with you people?

    If you find it absolutly necessary to carry on this infantile
    exchange, DO IT IN MAIL.

    \john

    
    <-- Is he allowed to say "hell"?

    Harney, turn in either
    
    A) your 'BoxModHat
       or
    B) your WebSurfBoard.
    
    Clear infraction of Corporate Guidelines.  Damn you!!
    
    |-{:-)
    

    
    DEC, one big unhappy disfunctional family.
    
    As this topic is about Satan Worshippers ?

    ... explains Pentium's problems. Must be possessed and simply need
    to be exorcised :-)
    
    I would agree, come fellas, it's Christmas.
    
    Chip

oooooo WE oooh
ooooo oooooo WE ooohh

De de de de
de de de de
de de de de


You're traveling through another dimension

 A dimension not only of sight and sound but of twaddle...

	we're good at twaddle....


	

    I've recently been reading the Satanic Bible
    
    The first half of the book is quite good and makes a strong case.
    Talks mostly about following natural instincts instead of trying to
    supress them and basically just living a hedonistic life style.
    
    Seems ok to me.
    
    It repeatedly mentions that they are not actually worshipping the devil
    just man and nature, and that the only reason to do this as an
    orginized religion is that man need cerimony and mystery in his life.
    
    			BUT THEN
    
    About half way through the book it start on about cerimonies...hello
    your losing me. The cerimonies described make it quite clear that they
    are in fact worshipping satan in all of his multiple forms and
    languages, and makes no excuses for wishing someone dead or cast spells
    to try and induce some poor victim to bed.
    
    Dont get me wrong I'm not saying its any worse than any other religion,
    they arent actually killing anything just wishing it dead.
    
    BUT
    
    they definitely are not just hedonists
    
    
    FWIW
    
    Brian V
    

    
>    The first half of the book is quite good and makes a strong case.
>    Talks mostly about following natural instincts instead of trying to
>    supress them and basically just living a hedonistic life style.
    
>    Seems ok to me.
    
>    The cerimonies described make it quite clear that they
>    are in fact worshipping satan in all of his multiple forms and
>    languages, and makes no excuses for wishing someone dead or cast spells
>    to try and induce some poor victim to bed.
    
>    Dont get me wrong I'm not saying its any worse than any other religion,
>    they arent actually killing anything just wishing it dead.
    
  
    Not any "worse than any other religion"?  
    
    jeff
    
    

    What Brian V describes is the difference between "white" and "black"
    magic. It is not necessarily in the nature of the magical "goal"
    itself, but rather in the consequences. The black magician of
    LaVey's church does not concern themselves with the "consequences"
    of their actions. In fact, they feel it is more of a "sin" (in
    their context) to _not_ perform a magical act to achieve one's
    goal. In contrast the "white" magical sects (Wicca, etc.), generally
    employ the concept of "Karma" and the "Ten Fold Law" to "regulate"
    that which they pursue through magical practice.
    
    The difference between white and black magick is not that one only
    participates in "good" (helpful) acts and the other only participates
    in "bad" (harmful) acts... it is in the way they interpret the
    possible consequences.
    
    What Brian is unfortunately confused by is the fact that LaVey
    uses exclusively Satanic symbolism... an easy confusion to be
    sure. This is why the first and second half of the book seem
    at odds. In truth, LaVey's work is _loaded_ with strange
    inconsistencies and is not particularly useful for anyone
    pursuing magical discipline.
    
    You see, what happened was, LaVey major misinterpreted Crowley's
    concept of Will. LaVey thinks Will is "what you want". That is
    not Will. Will is more a matter of "destiny" than some emotional
    physical need. So, when Crowley says it is a "sin" to not follow
    one's True Will, LaVey interprets to mean that if you want it
    you have to go get it. Thus Satanists appear very juvenile.
    
    -b
    you must

    Guess that makes you a  nitrite person.

    Burrrrrrn 'er anyway

Should the Satan worshippers who by force and violence damaged the property
of and prevented the congregation from exercising their first Amendment right
of freedom of worship at the Methodist Church in Atlanta that was smashed up
be charged under the new Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic and Church
Entrances Act?

(Please read the act, posted in ::CHRISTIAN 108.265, before you say no.)

/john

    /john
    
    What if the culprits do turn out to be teenagers who did this
    for whatever reason mindless vandals do such things; but, the perps
    are deemed NOT to be Satan worshippers?
    
    I can almost understand why the police think this was kids; the
    spraypainted scawlings and pentagrams seemed very amateurish to my
    eyes.
    
    Don't get me wrong; this never should have happened.  If caught,
    the vandals should be made to work for that congregation until full
    restitution is made (in addition to whatever jail time they are given,
    and I DO believe jail time is in order).
    
    

> (Please read the act, posted in ::CHRISTIAN 108.265,

That would be about as likely as OP WOMANNOTES for me . . . . 

    .189
    don't knock WOMMANNOTES - i was v bored on friday and opened it -
    there was a real heated debate on evolution, lots of personal attacks,
    illogical argument etc  - almost as good as in here
    
    ric

    It is most likely teenagers that did this. that has been the rule in
    Canada for similar acts of desecration.

Ban teenagers.

    Some could use a little deodorant actually.

    re: .190
    
    Yeah...I seem to bring out the best in people, don't I?   8^)

Should the Satan worshippers who by force and violence damaged the property
of and prevented the congregation from exercising their first Amendment right
of freedom of worship at the Methodist Church in Atlanta that was smashed up
be charged under the new Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic and Church
Entrances Act?

(Please read the act, posted in ::CHRISTIAN 108.265, before you say no.)

/john
    
    John,
    
    Yes, they should most definitely be punished to the fullest
    extent of the law. However, whatcha wanna bet that these are
    not "Satanists", but a bunch of kids taking their Danzig
    records a bit too seriously...
    
    -b

    .189
    
    :-)  Why does this not bother me???

    Yes, no matter what their intentions or who they are, they have engaged
    in activities clearly defined as prohibited per section 1.1(c) of the
    act and they should be charged accordingly.
    
    next?
    
    DougO

    RICO is not the act John mentioned nor the one to which I referred.
    
    DougO

    Old Serpent SNARF!

    Glad this note hasn't had any activity in over a year

    Must mean it's on the decline then, eh?

    I'd would find that hopeful for mankind, but really unbelievable with
    what's been happening.

    Perhaps it has nothing to do with Satan, ever thought of that?

They're still a buncha wackos, Ron.

    I agree with you Jack, and disagree with you Glenn.  Next.

    Objection, calls for speculation!

maybe there'll be more activity here if someone replaces note 666 with this
one.

    Any Boxers into Marilyn Manson?

>    Any Boxers into Marilyn Manson?


     my 13 year old son came home with a CD by them.  I took one look at the
     titles of the songs and tossed it in the trash (though I did take it
     out of the trash later and listened to one or 2 tracks..broke the CD 
     in half..then returned it to the trash).



 Jim

	If the dems win again, my guess is that this topic will start back up
again.

    Glen,
    
    You almost sound hopeful.
    
    ;^)

	While I know at some point there will be just 1 candidate from the
repubs, it will depend on what shape the party is in afterwards on whether or
not they survive. So right now I am very hopeful!

         Too bad this conference is dead-it looks like fun. 

    
      Well, Sam, ya got the right note fer yerself, anyways.
    
      bb

    
    	Ed:
    
    	"Satan Worshippers" is a note [or topic].
    	SOAPBOX is a conference [or file].
    
    
    	Please get it right, or I will be forced to taunt you a second
    	time.
    

Teens charged in girl's ritual torture and sacrifice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (May 3, 1996 00:17 a.m. EDT) -- Three
Satan-worshiping high school boys drugged, raped, tortured and murdered a
15-year-old girl in hopes a virgin sacrifice would earn them "a ticket to
hell," prosecutors said Thursday.

Elyse Pahler's body was found in March at what prosecutors believe was an
altar to Satan in a eucalyptus grove outside of San Luis Obispo.

Jacob W. Delashmutt, 16, Joseph Fiorella, 15, and Royce E. Casey, 17, were
arrested March 14. They are being held on charges of murder, gang
involvement, rape, torture and conspiracy.

Elyse disappeared July 22 and had been listed as a missing person until
Casey came forward and led authorities to her body, Deputy District Attorney
Dan Bouchard said. She was slain the night she left her house, Bouchard
said.

The boys "selected and stalked her believing that she was a virgin and that
her sacrifice would earn them a 'ticket to hell,"' Bouchard said.

The boys allegedly had a knife when they took Elyse to the apparent altar,
which prosecutors would not describe. There, prosecutors said, she was
drugged, a belt was put around her neck and she was raped and tortured, then
stabbed repeatedly in the torso.

According to court papers, the boys "formed a musical band to glorify Satan.
To enhance their musical ability to worship Satan and thereby earn a 'ticket
to hell,' they discussed the need for human sacrifice."

"To glorify Satan and commit the 'ultimate sin' against God, (they) selected
a virgin," prosecutors added.

The oldest of four children, the blond, blue-eyed girl was described by her
family in an obituary form as being active in church and gifted in the arts.
"She loved God, his beautiful world and loved her friends and large family,"
the family said.

Casey's attorney Kevin McReynolds said: "A lot of the allegations are
grossly overstated and some of them are flatly without any factual support
whatsoever. Our view is that many of these allegations are intended to
inflame public opinion and we look forward to the hearing."

Fiorella's lawyer declined to comment Thursday. Delashmutt's attorney was
unavailable for comment, his office said.

A hearing is set for June 12, If the teen-agers are tried as adults and the
jury finds special circumstances, they face up to life without parole. If
tried as juveniles, they face up to about seven years of juvenile detention,
said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district
attorney's office.

>The boys "selected and stalked her believing that she was a virgin and that
>her sacrifice would earn them a 'ticket to hell,"' Bouchard said.

They got that right.

    
      So do these guys have a CD out - SLABOUNTY would want one...
    
      bb

    re 67.218
    
    Thanks for the perspective. It needed to be mentioned.

    .218
    
    > The Catholic Church ... used to arrest, torture and then burn people
    > at the stake
    
    The Catholic Church burned exactly ZERO people at the stake.  When you
    get your facts right, come back and let us know.
    
    > The Romans, as everyone knows, used to torture Christians as 'pagans'
    > since they wouldn't worship Roman Gods.
    
    Oh, yes, I'm sure everyone knows this.  The word "pagan" is derived
    from the Latin word "paganus," which means an ignorant person or a
    yokel.  Exactly ZERO Christians were tortured by the Romans for being
    "pagans."  When you get your fact right, come back and let us know.
    
    > Ignorance [Satan] has been around a long, long time.
    
    Ignorance is equivalent to Satan only if you view ignorance as being
    the adversary.  Judging from half of .218, ignorance is your friend.

    Gee, I'm glad I'm not the only one on grampy's chit list! :-)

    Pretty horrific behaviour.  Where do they get these ideas. 

    .217
    
    Little do they know that if hell was all they wished for, they need not
    have tortured and killed that poor girl.  I guess they wanted reservations 
    for the "hottest" seats.  I don't think they really know what they are
    asking for. 
    
    I cringe when I read about this sort of thing.
    
    
    -steve

>    The Catholic Church burned exactly ZERO people at the stake.  When you
>    get your facts right, come back and let us know.

Semantic quibbling.  Torquemada and his cronies were _agents_ of the
Catholic Church.

>    Oh, yes, I'm sure everyone knows this.  The word "pagan" is derived
>    from the Latin word "paganus," which means an ignorant person or a
>    yokel.  Exactly ZERO Christians were tortured by the Romans for being
>    "pagans."  When you get your fact right, come back and let us know.

More semantic quibbling.  Exactly why did the Romans torture Christians?

 ZZ   Semantic quibbling.  Torquemada and his cronies were _agents_ of the
 ZZ   Catholic Church.
    
    Let's face it...Ya just can't Torquemada anything!!!

    Can't help it...I loved Mel Brooks.

    Oh, the church is without spot or wrinkle. I forgot.

 Z   More semantic quibbling.  Exactly why did the Romans torture
 Z   Christians?
    
    Nero was the man who really had it out for Christianity.  I believe
    Nero was a forshadowing of AntiChrist as spoken of in the book of
    Daniel.  
    
    From a political point of view, Christianity was spreading and I
    believe Rome saw Christianity as a threat to the Empire...mainly
    because its influence was spreading throughout Asia Minor and parts of
    Europe.  Christianity is in direct contradiction to Emporer worship and 
    idol worship.  This was a no no in the eyes of Nero.  
    
    From a faith point of view, There was a large conversion within Rome from 
    Judaism to Christianity.  The Holy Spirit became powerful within these men
    and women.  The Jews who had converted weren't complacent taxpayers for
    Nero anymore and were accused of "turning the world upside down."  Nero
    was a very dysfunctional, strange individual and delighted in blotching
    out Christianity.
    
    -Jack

    re: .226
    
    >    The Catholic Church burned exactly ZERO people at the stake.  When
    you get your facts right, come back and let us know.
    
    Semantic quibbling.  Torquemada and his cronies were _agents_ of the
    Catholic Church.
    
       Actually, I think it's more than semantic quibbling. The Inquisitors
    	could not take a life. What they could do though, is 'abandon the
    	heretic to the civil authorities' who would then kill them.
    
    			Robert.
    

    No quibbling over us Celts.  Guilty as charged.

>    No quibbling over us Celts.  Guilty as charged.

speak for yourself, I can't remember that far back.  In fact, I can barely 
remember last weekend...

Chris.

    >  In fact, I can barely remember last weekend...
    
    braggart!

>    >  In fact, I can barely remember last weekend...
>    
>    braggart!

Eh?!

Bemused of Bishop's Stortford.

    > Bemused of Bishop's Stortford.
    
    
    braggart!
    
    

    The problem with bringing religion into situations such as these (eg.,
    the boys raping, torturing, and killing the girl), is that it tends to
    defocus on the crime and focus on the 'supposed' cause. It also tends
    to promote "christian" cause.
    
    The Matamoros case, for example has been frequently equated to a
    Satanic Cult, when it was actually the practice of Palo Mayombe, in
    relation to drug smuggling and murder. Although some may cringe at the
    idea of using human bones in the practice of worshiping one's god, it
    is not, as of yet, illegal (unless the bones are illegally procured
    from a cemetary. However, for most Palos, the bones are procured from
    Medical suppliers).
    
    What *was* illegal in the Matamoros case was the murder of several
    people. What *is* illegal in this recent case, is that a person was
    raped, tortured, and murdered.
    
    Irregardless of the religious base, rape, torture, and murder are still
    illegal in this country. I believe the legal system should stick to
    that, and leave the religious stuff out of it.
    
    However, because of the sensationalism (eg., "Satanic Cult"), this case
    will probably be tried in that vein.
    
    Too bad the system still has a problem in separating church and
    state...

>Irregardless

God'll get you for that!

    I was right with you until you used that word.

    .232
    
    > Well, in fact, the Church did burn heritics.
    
    Again, you are wrong.  The Church did NOT burn heretics.  Convicted
    heretics were "relaxed to the secular arm" i.e., the civilian
    authorities, who were charged with the burning.
    
    > an acknowledged definitive work on the history of the Church.
    
    And, like so many others, in error.  I suggest you engage in a study of
    the Inquisition itself.  One possible source is _Torquemada and the
    Spanish Inquisition,_ by Rafael Sabatini.  I can recommend several
    other more recent sources; I have read about a dozen scholarly and well
    documented books whose entire subject matter was the Inquisition.  In
    none of them will you find evidence that Church personnel were directly
    charged with the execution of convicted heretics.
    
    > latin paganus meaning 'country dweller' as in 'not-in-the-know',
    > 'uneducated', , bumpkin...
    
    The Romans did not mistreat Christians for religious reasons.  The
    Romans were famous for their religious tolerance; whenever they brought
    a new region into the Empire, they allowed free and unrestricted
    practice of its worship.  This is why there were temples to Isis and
    Mithras, both Eastern divinities, as well as to Dis Pater, the Gallic
    chief god, in Rome and in many other principal cities of the Empire.
    The Christians, although they were often ridiculed, were not persecuted
    for being Christians - most *certainly( not for being "pagans"!  Paul
    himself was a remarkably well educated Jew and a Roman citizen. 
    (Citizenship was a great honor for provincials, and it was not bestowed
    lightly.)  Christians refused to worship the Emperor, but that wasn't
    the problem.  They also refused to bow to temporal authority; they
    wouldn't pay taxes, etc.  They were viewed as seditionist
    revolutionaries and treated accordingly.

    The Romans crucified Jesus, the Jews didn't. eh?

 ZZ    The Romans crucified Jesus, the Jews didn't. eh?
    
    Pilate succumbed to an angry mob.  You will find on a few occasions
    that both governmental leaders of Rome (Pilate for example), and the
    religious leaders (Pharisees) acquiesced their points of view merely to
    keep the peace!  

    >>  Irregardless
    
    probably no such word in the english language...
    
    I just made it up years ago an am still in the habit of using it (';
    
    Anyway...
    
    Irregardless translates to...
    
    [No matter what]
    
    So in this sentence...
    
    [No matter what] religious base, ...
    
    Yes, this is still poor grammar (for those of you who are checking)

>    Although some may cringe at the
>    idea of using human bones in the practice of worshiping one's god, it
>    is not, as of yet, illegal (unless the bones are illegally procured
>    from a cemetary. However, for most Palos, the bones are procured from
>    Medical suppliers).

There are laws in some/all states against the crime of "abuse of a corpse".  I
don't know exactly what is legal under these laws although selling a skull
procured from a cemetary is not, in the news story I saw. (the person charged
with the charge was also charged with another charge of graverobbing so
"abuse of a corpse" isn't just another name for graverobbing)

    re 67.243
    
    duh. I know.

    .242
    
    Yes, they did.  At the behest of the Jewish leaders, who insisted that
    he was a seditionist.

>> There are laws in some/all states against the crime of "abuse of a corpse". 

    Right.

>> I don't know exactly what is legal under these laws although selling a
>> skull procured from a cemetary is not, in the news story I saw. (the person
>> charged with the charge was also charged with another charge of graverobbing
>> so "abuse of a corpse" isn't just another name for graverobbing)
    
    Right again...
    
    	if you mean "abuse of a corpse" refers to mor than "graverobbing"
    
    However...
    
    There are Medical supply companies that sell Human skeletons. Since
    some rituals in Palo Mayombe require a Human skull, Palos who live in
    the states can aquire said skull from these Medical supply companies
    without risk of breaking any laws.

    So what? The Romans didn't make it happen.

   Z     re 67.243
        
   Z     duh. I know.
    
    Well, okay but maybe somebody else doesn't! 
    

>    > Well, in fact, the Church did burn heritics.
>    
>    Again, you are wrong.  The Church did NOT burn heretics.  Convicted
>    heretics were "relaxed to the secular arm" i.e., the civilian
>    authorities, who were charged with the burning.

isn't this one of the standard tactics employed by people who commit 
atrocities in order to shift the blame?  (Contemporary example: Sinn Fein)

Chris.

>    There are Medical supply companies that sell Human skeletons. Since
>    some rituals in Palo Mayombe require a Human skull, Palos who live in
>    the states can aquire said skull from these Medical supply companies
>    without risk of breaking any laws.

But do they sell them (legally) to just anyone for any purpose or is it only
for specific medical and teaching purposes that such sale is legal?  Like
hypodermic needles or drugs, its legal for a manufacturer of them to sell them
to doctors or pharmacies but the general public needs a prescription, and
even with one it's only for their own use.

    .251
    
    No, it was to salve their consciences.  The point was made that the
    personnel of the Church were forbidden to take life; they had to find
    some way to cause their victims to be killed while not themselves
    lighting the faggots.
    
    The purview of the temporal authorities, i.e., the civil law, included
    the execution of criminals.  Therefore, it made sense to hand heretics
    over to the secular arm.  Not shifting the blame at all, because the
    Inquisitors believed sincerely that they were doing the right thing
    under the laws of both Church and state.  Burning a heretic was
    believed to preserve the heretic's soul from hell, so the Inquisitors
    were, they thought, actually doing their victims a kindness in the
    eternal sense.

Legend on skeleton: "Federal law prohibits dispensing this skeleton without
a prescription."

.254,

incinerating pooves aside :) ta for the explanation.

Chris.

re .254:

According to that type of logic Hitler probably didn't kill a single Jew.

  .254  ah.  much better.  ;>

>> But do they sell them (legally) to just anyone for any purpose or is it only
>> for specific medical and teaching purposes that such sale is legal?  Like
>> hypodermic needles or drugs, its legal for a manufacturer of them to sell them
>> to doctors or pharmacies but the general public needs a prescription, and
>> even with one it's only for their own use.

    They sell them (legally) to *anyone* and don't ask the buyer why s/he
    is purchasing them.
    
    (eg., All I have to do to order, say, a skeleton, is call them, give
    them my VISA/MC # and address, and they will ship it to me).

    

    
    Did the Puritans do their own burning or did they pass it off to the
    civial authorities?                              

>>  Legend on skeleton: "Federal law prohibits dispensing this skeleton
>>  without a prescription."

    I assume you are saying this is "a myth" right?
    
    If not, then the Medical supply place I contacted is breaking a federal
    law...
    
    And don't worry, I wasn't trying to procure any skeletons
    
    at least not "real" ones, that is...

re .260:

The Puritans hanged their witches, except for one who was crushed to death.

re .259:

I'm sure lots of people who leave their body "to science" would be rather upset
if they were able to find out their bones were just sold to the highest bidder,
including to those who'd use them for religious/Satanic rituals.

    .257
    
    > According to that type of logic Hitler probably didn't kill a single
    > Jew.
    
    Sorry.  Hitler was the supreme secular authority under Nazism.  It was
    at his orders that Jews were put to death.  The way the Inquisition
    worked was that the Church did not order the deaths of the heretics. 
    It handed them over to the state, a power over which the Church had no
    legal authority at all, with a request that they were to be punished
    with the utmost severity.  The power that made the civilians dance to
    the Church's tune was the threat that failure to comply would be viewed
    as heresy on the part of the secular authorities - protecting a heretic
    from his spiritual punishment, you see...

RE: 67.254 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

Giving an order for a burning a person over some trivial difference in the
belief and lighting the fire are different acts,  to be sure,  but it is
absurd to claim that giving the order is blameless.  


Phil

    
    	Pam Smart ... Pam Smart!!
    

    Spam Mart .... Spam Mart!!

>> I'm sure lots of people who leave their body "to science" would be rather 
>> upset if they were able to find out their bones were just sold to the
>> highest bidder, including to those who'd use them for religious/Satanic
>> rituals.

    I guess that's part of leaving one's body "to science".
    There's no telling what will happen to it.

    .262
    
    I was thinking more of the Quakers who were executed by the Puritans
    for exercising religious freedom.  There's a statue erected in memory
    of one on Beacon Hill and I think it said they were burned.

RE: 67.263 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat"

> The way the Inquisition worked was that the Church did not order the
> deaths of the heretics. It handed them over to the state, a power over
> which the Church had no legal authority at all, with a request that they
> were to be punished with the utmost severity.

And if the person of the state,  the King (or whatever) failed to properly
torch the Heritic or Witch,  the Church would then "request" that the King
be killed.  It happened.  No Legal Authority?  No Problem!


Phil

    .264
    
    I do not claim that giving the order is blameless.  I report the
    beliefs of the persons involved, as recorded by themselves.

re .261:

Whooosh!

    
    	I have a friend who's adopted sister is a victim of satan
    worshippers. This kid has been screwed up from day one and is now in a
    private psych hospital trying to work through her problems (created by
    her satan worshipping natural parents). The horrors this child has seen
    are beyond belief. Anyone who can believe worshipping something that
    promotes violence and hate is good is really dangerous. These people
    are truly sick.
    
    
    jim 

    Jim,
    
    I have a friend who believes she was screwed up by a satanic cult,
    courtesy of regressive hynosis.  Can you say false memory syndrome? 
    The tales she tells are almost work for word the same of those in a
    book used by people who have made a lot of money exposing ritual
    satanic abuse"
    
    meg

    
    
    	Meg,
    
    	Yes, I've heard of those people who have been duped into believing
    they are victims of sexual abuse, satanic worshippers, etc.
    Unfortunately, this little girls case is very real. The girls father
    would pull into the adopted parents driveway and begin urinating on the
    lawn, shouting obscenities at the house, etc. There was a long history
    of abuse before this girl was removed from the family. 
    
    	I wish it was all made up....it isn't.
    
    	jim 

    The man was obviously deranged. But, we can all blame it on the devil
    this way, eh?

    The last time I checked, urnating on lawns shouting obscentities and
    abusing kids was not the exclusive baliwick of satanists.  It does
    sound typical of abusive people.  No ritualism involved.  
    
    meg

    
    
    	{sigh} there was documented abuse of satanic rituals being
    performed with this child being involved. The parents of this child
    were satanists. I really don't see why I need to spell this out. I'm
    not one of the bible thumpers in here who reaches to satanism as the
    reason for the supposed downfall of modern society. Give me a break
    already. I don't think either of you two know this child or her family
    personally whereas I do. Would you rather I described in detail the
    satanic rituals that were performed? 
    
    jim

    Sorry for doubting you Jim. But there have been so many documented lies
    about this kind of stuff, so much so, that the lives of innocent people
    have been ruined. 

    I believe what you say is true.

    
    	re: .278
    
    	Yeah, I know there are a lot of cases where the supposed satanism
    turns out to be nothing more than an overambitious pyschiatrist pushing
    their own agenda. This case, however, is not one of them.
    
    	Sorry I snapped like that in .277. I'm working on little sleep, hence
    little patience. My humblest apologies.
    
    	jim    	

    Snapped?
    
    Good grief man, you must be kidding!
    
    8^)

    
    
    	well, maybe just a little snap. more like a crackle...;*)
    
    

| <<< Note 67.281 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>



| well, maybe just a little snap. more like a crackle...;*)


	I want to see Jim pop!

    
    
    	Glen!
    
    

    
    Sorry, Glen, but I wouldn't.
    
    Not with his gun collection.
    
    ;^)

    
    >:*>
    
    

    re: a few back
    
    
    Just because there are documented cases where the patient was duped
    into believing they were a part of some satanic ritual (by an
    overzealous psychiatrist), does not mean that satanic rituals of a rather 
    morbid sort do not happen. 
    
    I think we sometimes dismiss things too quickly.
    
    Personally, I'd think satanic rituals of the illegal variety are a
    rarity, but I would not go so far as to say that they do not happen at
    all.
    
    
    -steve

    I wouldn't say that either.

    Re: satanic rituals and FMS
    
    Not all reported cases of Satanic Ritualistic Abuse (SRA) are true.
    Not all reported cases of SRA are false.
    
    The above statements also apply to recovered memories.
    
    I wrote a paper on recovered memories for a graduate course in Forensic
    Psychology. What I found to be most disturbing was the all or nothing
    phenomena that exists around this (False memories vs. Recovered
    memories) subject.
    
    FMS has not been accepted by the APA as a diagnosable disorder. It was
    coined by a group of accused perpetrators who founded the False Memory
    Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). One of the accused has publicly admitted to
    being a pedophile and is an active member of NAMBLA. FMS has since been
    used widely in the press and by authors of several books, whose sole
    purpose is to debunk reports of SRA.
    
    Several ongoing studies have been done relating to recovered memories.
    The leader of these studies is Elizabeth Loftus, who has proven that
    false memories can be induced. However, these studies are inconclusive,
    as nothing has been done in relation to the recall of traumatic events.
    
    Although many people claim hypnosis is the culprit for inducing false
    memories, Loftus showed that false memories can be induced without
    hypnosis. Other studies have also shown that hypnosis, if used
    correctly, can be instrumental in helping patients recall proven
    events.  (Can you say, "leading questions")
    
    All in all, Sadistic/Ritualistic Abuse does occur. Although there has
    been a tendency to try and provide some type of religious link (eg.,
    Satanic, etc), the fact remains that this stuff is torture of human
    beings, and is horrendous in nature.
    
    I still say, leave religion out of it and get down to basics. The
    victims were tortured. Fight against that.
    
    After all, look at the response here. Someone mentioned SRA and FMS
    was immediately brought up. What if they would have said this child had
    had a history of severe physical and sexual abuse?
    

    
    I always thought FMS was satanically-inspired, until they came out
    with DECForms.

    hee hee.
    
    I prefer SMG.

    I prefer cgi-bin.

    Yabbut, that's unix.

    > Yabbut, that's unix.
    
    Not on a Mac it's not, it's AppleScript.  Cost to set up a Mac as an
    FTP, Gopher, and/or WWW server (with cgi-bin support) is $10 for the
    shareware package called NetPresenz.
    
    The Mac on my desk at work is an FTP server for updating the rest of
    the Macs in our group.

    I know nothing of apple.

    Ask Eve.  She knew something about apples.

    I'm nearly certain that the fruit of the tree was a pomegranate and not
    an apple. It's easier to get caught eating a pomegranate than an apple.

    "Pomegranate" is a garbled version of the French phrase "Pomme grana
    tu" which of course means "You are a cheesy Italian apple."  QED

    RE: .217
    
    That can't be true.  We are told by "experts" in here that Satan
    worship doesn't exist.

     ZZ    The Romans crucified Jesus, the Jews didn't. eh?
    
    You and I killed Him.  He died for all of our sin.

snarf!

| <<< Note 67.299 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| You and I killed Him.  He died for all of our sin.

	You are wrong. WE had nothing to do with his death. 

>    Yabbut, that's unix.

Not on a VMS system it's not.  On VMS (using Purveyor WWWeb servers) a cgi-bin
can be DCL or an executable image in any language.

/john

    well, I'm just ignorant all around it seems.

>| You and I killed Him.  He died for all of our sin.
>
>	You are wrong. WE had nothing to do with his death. 

Sorry Glen, but a basic tenet of Christianity is that all of humanity caused
the death of Christ.  Consider the following famous Passiontide hymn:

		Ah, holy Jesus, how hast thou offended,
		That man to judge thee hath in hate pretended?
		By foes derided, by thine own rejected,
		O most afflicted!

**		Who was the guilty?  Who brought this upon thee?
**		Alas my treason, Jesus hath undone thee.
**		'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee:
****-->		I crucified thee.

		Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
		The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
		For our atonement, while we nothing heeded,
		God interceded.

		For me kind Jesus, was thy incarnation,
		Thy mortal sorrow, and thy life's oblation;
		Thy death of anguish and thy bitter passion,
		For my salvation.

		Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay thee,
		I do adore thee, and will ever pray thee,
		Think on thy pity and thy love unswerving,
		Not my deserving.

 ZZ   You are wrong. WE had nothing to do with his death.
    
    Glen, if you avail yourself of the free gift of eternal life, then you
    must acknowledge Christ came here with you in mind.  Therefore, even
    though you weren't directly an accessory to his death, you are the
    cause of it...just as I am the cause of it.  

    
    Local Boy Jack Martin Indicted in Death of Holy One of Israel.
    
    Stay Tuned.
    
    

    :-)

    "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might
    become the righteousness of God in Him."
    
    2 Corinthians 5:21

>>    I always thought FMS was satanically-inspired, until they came out
>>    with DECForms.

    LOL ('; ('; (';
    
    

St. Paul put it well, but in words not everyone will understand or accept.
The following paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it
in words anyone can understand; acceptance is harder.  The closing quote
by St. Francis of Assisi makes it absolutely clear who the guilty are.

 (598) In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her 
 saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and 
 the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."[389] 
 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,[390] the 
 Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility 
 for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they 
 have all too often burdened the Jews alone: We must regard as guilty all 
 those who continue to relapse into their sins.  Since our sins made the 
 Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves 
 into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for 
 he is in them) and hold him up to contempt.  And it can be seen that our 
 crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews.  As for them, 
 according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age 
 understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of 
 glory." We, however, profess to know him.  And when we deny him by our 
 deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.[391]

 "Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him
  still, when you delight in your vices and sins."[392]

   388 Nostra Aetate 4.

   389 Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; cf. Heb 12:3.

   390 Cf. Mt 25:45; Acts 9:4-5.

   391 Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; cf. Heb 6:6; 1 Cor 2:8.

   392 St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5, 3.

    
    Covert,
    
    That little catechism seems to deny a basic scriptural tenet:, namely, that
    Christ was crucified ONCE for our sins.  We don't continue to crucify
    him over and over and over.  He died once, arose once, and will return
    once.
    
    --- Barry
    

    Agreed, Barry.  I'm glad someone else noticed this.  If I said it,
    reactions would be different.
    
    this just cements the position of scripture over traditional writings.
    
    Mike

You two seem to have a misunderstanding of the word once.

While Christ was crucified once, it was our sins, our continued sin,
which continue to require that one-time crucifixion.

Something I do today can crucify Christ 2000 years ago.

/john

    Not for the believer.  Read Romans and Hebrews.

I have.

| <<< Note 67.304 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Sorry Glen, but a basic tenet of Christianity is that all of humanity caused
| the death of Christ.  Consider the following famous Passiontide hymn:


	Future things can not be attributed to what is happening at that very
second. When Christ died, we were not even born yet. We can not be part of His
death. 

	I don't know where you went to learn about Christianity, but I do not
remember anything like that. I do remember Him dieing for us so we can go to
Heaven. But that has nothing to do with being held accountable for His death.


Glen

re .316

But God is eternal, and his Son took upon himself the sins of the past, present,
and future.

/john

	Well, Mike and John will try to convince one another about this. I
don't think that will be happening. 



Glen

    >           -< You might start with Hebrews 6:6 --"crucifying again" >-
    
    This verse isn't referring to believers.

    Glen, God is outside of time.

re .319

It's referring those who once believed and then fell into sin.

/john

    >It's referring those who once believed and then fell into sin.
    
    I don't agree.  Scripture is clear in teaching that true believers do
    not turn their backs on God.
    
    Mike

Oh, goody!

A thumper war right here in the Satan Worshippers topic!

    I believe the term your searching for is "Biblical Quarter-backing"

Ya know Mike, that fine a point of doctrine isn't worth arguing in here.

What the Bible does say is that those who _do_ fall away (I'll grant your
claim that they weren't true believers if they fall completely away) crucify
Christ _again_.

But forget, for the moment, the fine point of doctrine that we're not going
to agree on.

Think about Christ and why he died.

His death was necessary because of the sins of the whole world.  My sins today,
your sins tomorrow, and Glen's sins last week were what crucified him.

/john

    Okay, John.

| <<< Note 67.317 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| But God is eternal, and his Son took upon himself the sins of the past, present,
| and future.

	The sins were taken on..... our sins did not cause His death. What He
did was look out for those in the future, which is what someone who knows
everything would do. 



Glen

| <<< Note 67.320 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, God is outside of time.

	God is, but His Son was from a REAL time period.

| <<< Note 67.323 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| A thumper war right here in the Satan Worshippers topic!

	Too funny....

    Hebrews 6 is probably the most difficult passage to decipher in the New
    Testament, mainly because at face value, what it appears to say is not
    in harmony with the tenets of all the other messages regarding grace
    and eternal security.
    
    Glen, since God is omnipresent, time is not really an issue.  The
    bottom line is that if we are beneficiaries of what Christ did, if we
    are actually saved from something we deserve, then the causality of
    Christ's death and what he had to endure ultimately falls on us...since
    it is our very nature that is responsible for his needing to die in the
    first place.
    
    -Jack

    >	God is, but His Son was from a REAL time period.
    
    God's Son was also pre-existent and joined our time domain to complete
    His mission.  This has been well documented by rabbis for thousands of
    years.

	Mike, when His Son died, it happened at a certain time. Certain people
killed Him. From His death, the forgiveness of sins happened.

	You could do the same thing with other things in this world. Martin
Luther King died at a certain time. From his death, a lot of good things have
happened for people of the future. We did not cause his death.



Glen

� devil snarf

    ...and since Christ died once for every sin from Creation to Armageddon,
    there is no logic in "crucifying again."  He died once, and for all,
    past, present, and future.  We put him there as much as anyone else. 
    To deny that is saying you are without sin and contradicts 1 John 1:10.
    To say you're crucifying Him again is also incorrect since He's already
    died for all sin.
    
    Mike

Comparing God to Martin Luther King (no matter how good MLK was) falls flat.

Jesus is God and is eternal; MLK is not.

Mike,

You can't get away from the "crucify again", since it's right there in
Hebrews.

Once crucified, even if sinners crucify him again.

/john

    .334
    
    > there is no logic in "crucifying again."
    
    If I had a dollar for every time a thumper told me that logic is
    meaningless because we're not capable of understanding God's mind, I'd
    be a very rich man.

 Z   Mike, when His Son died, it happened at a certain time. Certain people
 Z   killed Him. From His death, the forgiveness of sins happened.
    
    I think it is more a semantics issue?  
    
    Who killed Jesus Christ???  An angry mob of Jewish leaders under the
    auspices of Rome.  Who is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ?
    Well....you and I are!
    
    

| <<< Note 67.334 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| ...and since Christ died once for every sin from Creation to Armageddon,
| there is no logic in "crucifying again."  He died once, and for all,
| past, present, and future.  We put him there as much as anyone else.

	No, we of the future, as well of those who weren't directly involved
for His death, were not responsible for it. Our sins being forgiven was a
result of His death. The sins we committed did not cause His death, if we
weren't directly involved.

| To deny that is saying you are without sin and contradicts 1 John 1:10.

	No, it does not say I am without sin. It says that my sins are
forgiven. Nothing else.

    Martin Luther King isn't God and isn't relevant to the discussion.
    
    Scripture clearly states that it was Christ's atonement that covered
    sin: past, present, and future.  The soldiers that put Him there
    could've been from any country.  If God told the OT prophets to say it
    would happen 100 years earlier, it would've been Greek soldiers.  God
    could've told the OT prophets to say it would happen in another
    country.  These facts aren't relevant.  The issue here is why He died
    and for who.  This is an eternal spiritual truth.  
    
    Mike

    The key is that time is irrelevent and is a non qualifiable measuring
    stick....since God is omnipresent.

Don't forget to mention that, for the omnipotent, time is an irrelevance.

Chris.

>	No, we of the future, as well of those who weren't directly involved
>for His death, were not responsible for it. Our sins being forgiven was a
>result of His death. The sins we committed did not cause His death, if we
>weren't directly involved.
    
    Glen, does God have foreknowledge?

| <<< Note 67.340 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Scripture clearly states that it was Christ's atonement that covered sin: 
| past, present, and future.  

	On this, we agree. But it doesn't make us responsible for His death. 

| The soldiers that put Him there could've been from any country. If God told 
| the OT prophets to say it would happen 100 years earlier, it would've been 
| Greek soldiers. God could've told the OT prophets to say it would happen in 
| another country. These facts aren't relevant.  

	Facts usually aren't relavant when some talk about the Bible.

| The issue here is why He died and for who. This is an eternal spiritual truth.

	I hope you understand it, soon.

 ZZ   Don't forget to mention that, for the omnipotent,
    
    ODOR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!

    i dunno... do you think they'll reach an agreement by the end of the day?

>You can't get away from the "crucify again", since it's right there in
>Hebrews.
    
    do you have a transliteration of the Greek?  The notion doesn't fit the
    context.
    
    Mike

.341, .342,

someone's trying to confuse me.  Stop it, it's easily enough done in the best 
of circumstances.

Chris.

    When Protestants and Catholics collide.

    Same old thing.

| <<< Note 67.343 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, does God have foreknowledge?

	Depends on who you talk to. To *me*, I think He does. But if He does,
then He already knows who will be saved, and who will not be saved. So we
probably don't need religion, because we will end up the way we are in a
predestined plan He already has in place. 


Glen

| <<< Note 67.349 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Nooo, spank you!" >>>

| When Protestants and Catholics collide.
| Same old thing.

	War?

    Glen, how did your sins become forgiven?

    
>>    Glen, does God have foreknowledge?
    
    God did/does not require foreknowledge WRT our sins.
    
    If you believe this, then you are saying that our lives are predestined.

    >    If you believe this, then you are saying that our lives are predestined.
    
    not at all.  we possess a free will.  God knows what will happen
    regardless of what we choose.

    It's really a pity that people can't seem to accept symbolism in any
    book of the Bible except Revelation.  The point of Hebrews 6:6 is that
    those who fall away from the Word are SYMBOLICALLY crucifying Christ
    again, heaping shame on him by holding him and his teachings up to
    ridicule.
    
    Jesus died exactly ONCE.  His ONE death paid the blood price for every
    sin ever committed.  He cannot die again, but he can be mortified and
    shamed innumerable times.

| <<< Note 67.352 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, how did your sins become forgiven?

	Everyone's sins became forgiven when Christ died. God was able to think
ahead to cover anyone who sinned. But Him planning ahead has nothing to do with
anyone's sin who was not directly involved in His Son's death as causing His
Son's death. In other words, my sins are covered because He planned ahead, but
my sins did not cause His Son's death.

    .316
    
    God is outside of time, something we humans- being trapped within the
    timestream- have a difficult time understanding.
    
    What we do today DOES (DID?) have an affect upon the suffering of
    Christ on the cross.  He paid for each and every sin- past, present
    and future- for all those who would believe in Him.
    
    This is a complex issue, so it is understandable that folx quibble over
    semantics.
    
    Christ was crucified nearly 2000 years ago.  Yet, He paid for MY sins
    of today and tomorrow (and past, of course).  So, if I sin tomorrow, it
    is paid for.  Does this mean that Christ is crucified again?  No.  It
    does mean that at His crucifixion, my sin of tomorrow will be/has been
    added to his punishment. 
    
    Our future sins have been paid for, as God knows the future- yet we
    chose to act the way we do (so in effect, we can add to the punishment
    of Christ by chosing to sin- God knowing we would make this choice
    added that punishment 2000 years ago).
    
    Confused yet?  If not, I can babble on some more.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 67.354 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| not at all.  we possess a free will.  God knows what will happen
| regardless of what we choose.

	Mike, He would also know which choice we will choose. Predestination.

    If god knew the future, why was he sorry he created man?

| <<< Note 67.357 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

| God is outside of time, something we humans- being trapped within the
| timestream- have a difficult time understanding.

	Speaking of which... next Tuesday night at 8:00 pm, the new Dr Who
movie will be on Fox. For those who don't know, Dr Who is a Timelord, who
travels in, and at times, outside of time.




Glen

    .358
    
    > Predestination.
    
    No.  Predestination means God knew before an act is committed what that
    act will be.  God did not exist before today, God does not exist today,
    and God will not exist tomorrow.  God just exists.  Period.  Time is a
    dimension of the space-time continuum; outside the continuum, time has
    no meaning.  Therefore, outside the continuum there is no was, is, or
    will be.  There's just God.

>                  <<< Note 67.356 by BIGQ::SILVA "Mr. Logo" >>>
>| Glen, how did your sins become forgiven?
>
>	Everyone's sins became forgiven when Christ died. God was able to think
>ahead to cover anyone who sinned. But Him planning ahead has nothing to do with
>anyone's sin who was not directly involved in His Son's death as causing His
>Son's death. In other words, my sins are covered because He planned ahead, but
>my sins did not cause His Son's death.

    So you are saying His death led to your forgiveness of your sin, but
    your sin isn't responsible for His death.  This doesn't make sense and
    is unscriptural as well.
    
    Mike

>>    God is outside of time, something we humans- being trapped within the
>>    timestream- have a difficult time understanding.

I guess this all depends upon how "we humans" view the space/time continuum...

    >	Mike, He would also know which choice we will choose. Predestination.
    
    I don't agree.  Predestination to me implies that God is doing the
    choosing for us.  This isn't the case.

| <<< Note 67.362 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| So you are saying His death led to your forgiveness of your sin, but
| your sin isn't responsible for His death.  

	Exactly.

| This doesn't make sense and is unscriptural as well.

	So if person A gets a bunch of people to kill person B, then somehow
we're all responsible? If only the people of group A are responsible for person
B's death, then apply the same logic to Christ dieing. A specific group of
people killed Him. They are responsible for His death.

  .365  8-<

    
    Glen Silva, a warp in the space-time continuum.
    
    ;^)...just kidding Glen.

>                  <<< Note 67.365 by BIGQ::SILVA "Mr. Logo" >>>
>| So you are saying His death led to your forgiveness of your sin, but
>| your sin isn't responsible for His death.  
>
>	Exactly.
    
    How can you possibly benefit from His death without any responsibility
    or accountability?

>| This doesn't make sense and is unscriptural as well.
>
>	So if person A gets a bunch of people to kill person B, then somehow
>we're all responsible? If only the people of group A are responsible for person
>B's death, then apply the same logic to Christ dieing. A specific group of
>people killed Him. They are responsible for His death.

    This doesn't sound like a valuing differences statement.  It smells of
    anti-Semitism.  
    
    Mike

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

    Glen has no shame!!!!

| <<< Note 67.367 by EDITEX::MOORE "GetOuttaMyChair" >>>


| Glen Silva, a warp in the space-time continuum.

	Someone has been watching the tv show...

| <<< Note 67.368 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| How can you possibly benefit from His death without any responsibility
| or accountability?

	Did the African Americans of today benefit from MLK's death? They sure
did. And they had nothing to do with it. If God plans for the future, which He
can do, then to *me*, anyway, He is showing those from the future that He loves
them just like everyone else. Remember, He is always around.... we are not. 

| This doesn't sound like a valuing differences statement.  It smells of
| anti-Semitism.

	Please explain.

    Your analogy to MLK doesn't wash.  How do the slaves of the Civil War
    era benefit from MLK's death?  Remember, Christ's death applied to
    past, present, and future sins.
    
>| This doesn't sound like a valuing differences statement.  It smells of
>| anti-Semitism.
>
>	Please explain.
    
    Something this obvious doesn't need explaining.  Your claims about His
    murders are strikingly similar to past church members offenses to the
    Jewish people.
    
    Mike

RAINBOW IN THE DARK

When there's lightning - it always bring me down
Cause it's free and I see that it's me
Who's lost and never found
I cry for magic - I feel it dancing in the light
But it was cold - I lost my hold
To the shadows of the night

There's no sign of the morning coming
You've been left on your own
Like a Rainbow in the Dark

Do your demons - do they ever let you go
When you've tried - do they hide -deep inside
Is it someone that you know
You're a picture - just an image caught in time
We're a lie - you and I
We're words without a rhyme

There's no sign of the morning coming
You've been left on your own
Like a Rainbow in the Dark

When there's lightning - it always brings me down
Cause it's free and I see that it's me 
Who's lost and never found
Fell the magic -fell it dancing in the air
But it's fear - and you'll hear 
It calling you beware

There's no sign of the morning coming
There's no sight of the day
You've been left on your own
Like a Rainbow in the Dark

| <<< Note 67.373 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Your analogy to MLK doesn't wash. How do the slaves of the Civil War era 
| benefit from MLK's death?  

	How does Christ's death affect those of the past? It doesn't. 

| Something this obvious doesn't need explaining.  Your claims about His
| murders are strikingly similar to past church members offenses to the
| Jewish people.

	Then you should explain, because I don't see it. Enlighten me.

    .375
    
    > How does Christ's death affect those of the past? It doesn't.
    
    Wrong.  Read Matthew 27:52-53 to get an inkling.

I know some religions believe that people should only take communion once a
year to precisely follow the scriptures. These religions deride the Catholic
Church (and others) for having communion at every service.

This discussion reminds me of such arguments.

I'm unsure what purpose it serves, other than having someone acquiesce and
say "You are right. I am wrong."

    
    > I'm unsure what purpose it serves, other than having someone
    > acquiesce and say "You are right. I am wrong."
    
    I'm planning a ski trip to Hell this very moment.

    Glen, as Dick pointed out, you're wrong again.
    
>I know some religions believe that people should only take communion once a
>year to precisely follow the scriptures. These religions deride the Catholic
>Church (and others) for having communion at every service.
    
    Once a year isn't scriptural.

    Neither is once a month, which is the protestant norm.

    Our church does it every Sunday night service.

    Why not every service?

          <<< Note 67.379 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
>>    Glen, as Dick pointed out, you're wrong again.
>>        
>> >I know some religions believe that people should only take communion once a
>> >year to precisely follow the scriptures. These religions deride the Catholic
>> >Church (and others) for having communion at every service.
>>        
>>        Once a year isn't scriptural.

    Ahem... Actually... Glen did not write this. I did.
    
    As far as the once a year thing, the church I used to belong to claimed
    that taking communion was to replicate Christ's last supper (eg., this
    is my body, this is my blood), which happened before his crucifiction.
    They also said that it should only be done at that time.
    
    The scripture says something about... "do this in memory of me", or
    something like that (I'm not very good at quoting scripture). So, this
    could be arguably done as many times as one chose.
    
    Anyway, I was just pointing out that different religions interpret the
    bible in different ways, which doesn't make any one religion right.
    

    <- "Do you suppose I came to grant peace on the earth ? I tell you no,
        but rather, division." - Luke 12:51
    
        Yep, Christ had it nailed down quite well, although, in defense of
        myself, YES, I KNOW THE REFERENCE WAS BELIEVER V. NON-BELIEVER.
    
    	Oh, BTW, this is turning into an argument between the Calvinists
    	and the Armenians.

Arminians.

NNTTM.

    For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim his
    death and resurrection.....

    So, why not do it often?
    
    Because the catholics do it every time, and they do it wrong anyways
    ,so, we don't want to look anything like them. I speak as a protestant.

 I once attended a protestant church where we observed the Lord's Supper
 on a weekly basis.  I found, as did some of my breth/sisteren that it
 became more of a ritual, rather than a time of deep reflection and
 self examination.  I now attend a Baptist church, and we observe
 the Lord's supper once per quarter, or perhaps more frequently.  I find
 the observance is much more meaningful to me as a result.



 Jim

    If Jesus means so much to you, how could it ever have less meaning?
    
    Perhaps you should go to church only once a quarter, so everything has
    more meaning.

>    If Jesus means so much to you, how could it ever have less meaning?
    
 
     The partaking of the Lord's Supper is a serious matter, according to
     the Bible.  I (speaking for me and no one else, though I have heard
     others state the same) found that a weekly partaking was simply not
     as meaningful as it should have been.  Perhaps it has to do with my
     Christian maturity at the time.  Today, particularly with the
     way we celebrate this ordinance in my church, I find myself to be
     in a closer communion with God. 



>   Perhaps you should go to church only once a quarter, so everything has
>    more meaning.



    No, I go to church 3 times a week (when I can) because I know I need
    to be there.



 Jim

    It strikes me that this last thread about "the lord's supper" is in an
    appropriate topic. Of course a "Mystical BS" topic could be started and
    a moderator could move it all there.

    >    Why not every service?
    
    In a church of 4,000 members it isn't feasible.
    
    "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
    Lord's death until He comes." - 1 Corinthians 11:26
    
    In remembering such an important event in Christianity, once a year
    isn't enough and every service isn't expedient.  Scripture doesn't
    specify intervals.
    
    Mike

>    	Oh, BTW, this is turning into an argument between the Calvinists
>    	and the Armenians.
    
    It can't because I'm not either one.

>    In a church of 4,000 members it isn't feasible.

???

Are 4,000 members present at each service at which it might be offered?

Years ago when I was a Roman Catholic I recall attending masses at Saint
Patrick's Cathederal in NYC and the National Cathederal in DC, both of
which were very large churches. While there may not have been 4,000
communicants at a given mass, there were certainly well over 2,000 in
some of the cases that I recall. It didn't seem to be infeasible.

        The RC church has it down to a science. They can do it for tens of
    thousands of people.

    Of course it isn't communion, in the Protestant sense, but a misguided
    ritual of resacrifice.

>         <<< Note 67.395 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Spank you very much!" >>>

	What's misguided about it?

    It's not his practice, that's what.

>    Of course it isn't communion, in the Protestant sense, but a misguided
>    ritual of resacrifice.

Of course, only Protestants claim that Roman Catholics teach "resacrifice".

Roman Catholics (and Lutherans and Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox) teach that
it is a making present of Christ: the same fully sufficient sacrifice once
offered.

	"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist
	 are _one_single_sacrifice_"  (Catechism paragraph 1367,
	 emphasis in original.)

/john

	I'm still just trying to figure out what it is that makes it 
	(Communion to thousands) infeasible according to whatever 
	Protestant practices we might be talking about.

	I mean, do they make it a sit-down dinner, or what?

  .400  I don't understand either.

    As a believer, it distresses me that issues such as this puts marks on
    the entire body of Christianity because of these petty disputes.
    
    Ron

 indeed.

    it's logistically infeasible.  Anyway, we already do it more than most
    churches since we are weekly (Sunday evenings).  
    
    Also, not everyone is at every service.  We have 2 services on Sunday
    morning, 2 on Sunday night, 1 Wednesday night, and 1 Saturday night. 
    Wednesday night sees the lightest attendance so that wouldn't be the
    most beneficial communion service.  Saturday night is the 2nd lightest.
    Sunday mornings are packed, but there are time constraints to consider.
    Sunday evenings are packed too, but don't have the time constraints. 
    
    Mike

    unfeasible?
             

 
It takes a considerable amount of time to pass out the baskets with the
 bread and the trays with the cups of juice from person to person.  Even
 in my church with only about 200 people in the auditorium, it can be
 quite a consumer of time, and unfortunately there are a lot of people who
 come to church who are in a hurry to get out.  



 Jim

    As has been explained to you Protestant types, it need not be such a
    clumsy process.  I've seen 1500 people receive Communion in less than
    15 minutes at a Catholic mass.
    
    As for the argument about its becoming less meaningful, that is pure
    horsecrap.  It is meaningful to the exact degree that YOU, the
    communicant, are willing to invest yourself in the sacrament.  If you
    find it less meaningful for frequency, that's your problem - if God is
    farther away from you, guess who moved.

    > cups of juice
    
    Juice?  Unfermented juice?  That's not Communion, that's hypocrisy. 
    Jesus used wine.  Never mind that it may have been more dilute than
    modern wines, it still contained alcohol.
    
    And don't cry about how sinful alcohol is - Paul was well aware of its
    benefits and even instructed Timothy to drink wine for his stomach
    ailment(s).  The sin is in overconsumption.

   re: Dick

   Yes, but in these times of rampant alcoholism some churches have taken to 
   serving juice so that all can partake of communion, without having to have a
   special "designated driver" section.

   And yes, � ounce of 12% alcohol is enough to act as a trigger for some
   people.

   -- Sam

>    As has been explained to you Protestant types, it need not be such a
>    clumsy process.  I've seen 1500 people receive Communion in less than
>    15 minutes at a Catholic mass.
 

     Wonderful!

   


>    find it less meaningful for frequency, that's your problem - if God is
>    farther away from you, guess who moved.


     Exactly, Dick.  And I personally find that my relationship with God has
     been enhanced by the manner in which my church observes the Lord's 
     Supper.  It is frequently a time of tears for many of us in the church
     as we contemplate the significance of that in which we are partaking.
     

Jim

    
>    Juice?  Unfermented juice?  That's not Communion, that's hypocrisy. 
>    Jesus used wine.  Never mind that it may have been more dilute than
>    modern wines, it still contained alcohol.
    
>    And don't cry about how sinful alcohol is - Paul was well aware of its
>    benefits and even instructed Timothy to drink wine for his stomach
>    ailment(s).  The sin is in overconsumption.



     Thank you for a) putting words in my mouth and b) speaking them for me
     however incorrect your assumptions as to my reply may be.




 Jim

    Wine and water are generally mixed in the chalice in an Anglican
    service.
    
    And chugging an ounce from the chalice is considered tres gauche. [and
    those little cup jobbies don't hold an ounce either]
    
    The merest sip of a liquid containing 6% or less of alcohol isn't
    sufficient to bring on intoxication.

        Sheesh, my comment was a facetious one.

>    As has been explained to you Protestant types, it need not be such a
>    clumsy process.  I've seen 1500 people receive Communion in less than
>    15 minutes at a Catholic mass.
    
    This assumes all Protestants and Catholics use the same process from
    church to church.  
    
    Our head church is in Costa Mesa and has 30,000 people.  We use similar
    processes for passing out the communion elements.  Our 4,000 people
    typically get it in less than 15 minutes as well.  I'm not sure how
    long it takes for Costa Mesa.
    
    Mike

>    Juice?  Unfermented juice?  That's not Communion, that's hypocrisy. 
    
    The symbolism is the same as Christ intended it to be.

>              <<< Note 67.412 by POWDML::AJOHNSTON "beannachd" >>>

>    Wine and water are generally mixed in the chalice in an Anglican
>    service.
    
   Doesn't matter, it still has alcohol in it.

>    And chugging an ounce from the chalice is considered tres gauche. [and
>    those little cup jobbies don't hold an ounce either

   Assuming you're quoting my reply, I stated "1/4 ounce", but I foolishly
   used my compose key to get a "�" symbol, thinking that by now most people
   had a terminal capable of rendering that character sequence.

>    The merest sip of a liquid containing 6% or less of alcohol isn't
>    sufficient to bring on intoxication.

   No, but it *is* MORE THAN sufficient to act as a trigger for a severe
   alcoholic, even one with several years' sobriety.  The trick is to avoid
   *all* alcohol, even to the level of using non-alcoholic mouthwashes (which
   most people don't ingest at all, unless you're using Scope in your mint
   juleps...  :-)) and cough medicines.

   -- Sam

    My apologies for not having a a "compose reader"
    
    While I do understand what you are saying about triggering an
    alcoholic, I believe that it is perhaps overstated. My father, an
    Anglican priest, is alcoholic who has been in recovery for over 20
    years. Over the past 20 years his wetting of the lips after
    consecrating the elements of the Eucharist has not triggered any fall
    from sobriety. [cough medicine, mouthwash, and vanilla extract were
    problems in the early year]
    
    Scope in mint juleps ... it just wouldn't work. Scope in a stinger,
    maybe. But a liquid of some sort doesn't substitute for leaves.
    
      Annie

    Annie, not all have your father's will power.  the scriptures say not
    to cause a brother to stumble.
    
    Mike

    .415
    
    >> Juice?  Unfermented juice?
    >
    >The symbolism is the same as Christ intended it to be.
    
    But - but - but there's no symbolism in the Bible except in Revelation. 
    The Six Days of Creation were comprised by one 144-hour period, didn't
    you know?

    Revelation is a very literal book.

    juice.  line 'em up.

    .420
    
    Revelation is literally a book, I'll buy that much.
    
    As for the literal meaning of its contents, hogwash.  The Whore of
    Babylon was and is not a human femane practicing the trade of
    prostitution in the city of Babylon.  The Four Horsemen of the
    Apocalypse were and are not four human (or amgelic) persons engaged in
    equitation.  And so on.  If you are incapable of absorbing the meaning
    behind such symbols, you are in serious trouble.  I suggest a session
    with Barclay or Asimov.

    The first 3 chapters have already been fulfilled.

    The first three chapters had already been fulfilled when the book was
    written.

    FWIW, Mormons take the sacrament every Sunday. In Colorado Springs that
    is about 10000 Mormons every Sunday. They accomplish this by having
    their services in groups of about 250 to 350 members and children, with
    sacrament meeting being 1 hour long.

    "Boob cakes! Line 'em up!"

>    The first three chapters had already been fulfilled when the book was
>    written.
    
    Not even close.  The book was written in 95 A.D.  The first 3 chapters
    are historical as well as prophetic.  The church at Philadelphia, as the 
    scripture states, is the only one of the 7 that still exists. 
    Prophetically speaking:
    
    - the church at Ephesus disappeared 200 years later.
    -  "    "    "  Pergamos fell to idolatry starting in 312 A.D.
    -  "    "    "  Thyatira has been in idolatry since 400 A.D.
    -  "    "    "  Sardis professing Christ but not possessing Him has
                      been on going since the Reformation.
    - the churches at Philadelphia and Laodicea are the modern era 
      (post-Reformation) churches.  Many scholars point to Laodicea as the
      current health & wealth movement.
    
    The degree of problems people have with Revelation is directly 
    proportional to their knowledge of the Old Testament and Hebrew culture.
    The 400+ verses in Revelation contain over 800 references to the Old
    Testament.  Quite a few references are idiomatic that have to be read
    through Jewish eyes.
    
    Mike

    
    	 re .426
    
    	stick to "Bumblebee Tuna" ... it's funnier...
    
    

    
    
    Karen!!! Shame on you!!!
    
    You're not valuing his diversity!!!!
    

    I'm glad that I now know to go to the "Satan Worshipers" topic to get
    lessons on the bible. (';

    Michelle beat me to it; trying to catch up in da 'box, I've been
    wondering what in the world the last 150+ entries had to do with
    satan worship!!

      I found my girlfriend reading "Moonchild" by Aliester Crowley. Should
    this be cause for concern?
    -ss

    No,\
    
    But if she rents a copy of the Wicker Man, and starts weaving a large
    animal shaped basket, you might want to make sure of your life and
    health insurance assignments.
    
    ;-)

re .433

Get a new girlfriend.

         Your girlfriend is possessed by evil spirits. In my country, we
    would get a shamen to perform the "rite of shunning". The woman must be
    locked in a hut for twelve days without food, until she begins to have
    visions. Then she is beaten with a cow skull and all her hair is burned
    off. This ritual is over 1500 years old. There have been very few
    modifications made in the basic rite in all those centuries. 

    She's really quite NORML. She doesn't have any dead animals or
    anything.
    -ss

| <<< Note 67.433 by THEMAX::SMITH_S "I (neuter) my (catbutt)" >>>

| I found my girlfriend reading "Moonchild" by Aliester Crowley. Should
| this be cause for concern?

	Only if your name is Ed Walker. :-)

| <<< Note 67.437 by THEMAX::SMITH_S "I (neuter) my (catbutt)" >>>

| She's really quite NORML. She doesn't have any dead animals or anything.

	You flatter yourself! :-)

>         Your girlfriend is possessed by evil spirits.

I know her. She owes me money!~

    I have a Beatles album with a bunch of different faces on the front of
    the cover.  One of them in the top left is Aliester Crowley.  Should I
    be concerned?
    
    Challenge your girlfriend as to why whe would waste her time with such
    garbage!

    Jack, come on.  Steve is impressed by this.  He surely will not 
    admonish her... Your chain is being yanked my friend.

    re: .441
    
    Jack, my library would scare you to death, and I'm a very normal
    person.... :-)
    
    I wouldn't worry about it,  "Moonchild" is one of his fictional
    works (well, I suppose they are all "fiction", however "Moonchild"
    is a novel as opposed to an instruction manual).  If she develops
    an interest in "The Book of the Law" or "Magick in Theory and
    Practice", I'd try and find out what was on her mind.
    
    I did study Crowley for a short while, didn't find the nightmares
    particularly endearing, and stopped.
    
    Mary-Michael
      

    I don't know, some of Crowley's "non-fiction" on mountain climbing and
    his autobiographies are pretty neat to read, if a bit pompous. 
    
    The man was quite the mountaineer in his day.
    
    meg

    My girlfriend has since told me she was bored with the Crowly book, and
    now she is reading "The Fifth Sacred Thing". Not sure about this one
    either, but she really likes it . It's something to do with a eutopian
    society or something.
    -ss

    
    	What are the 1st 4 sacred things?
    

    I can't remember what she said they were, but they were the four that
    is necessary to sustain life.
    -ss

    What?
    
    Lager,football,sex and television?
    
    I guess the fith is eating doner kebabs.
    
    ho,ho.