Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    *Not* a "being" -- even doesn't get itself that well organized.

    The nature of this subject is important to any Christian discussion. 
    However, have a care to center yourself before contemplating the
    attributes of Satan.  
    
    "What gets your attention gets you."  -- Glenn Clark
    
    DR

    The word "Satan" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "adversary" or
    "accuser".  It appears in only three places in the Hebrew Bible (the Old
    Testament): Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2; and 1 Chron 21:1.  All of these
    appearances are postexilic in date (that is, after 538 BCE).

    In the first two appearances (Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2), the word "satan"
    appears with the definite article--in other words, "the satan", or "the
    accuser".  It is only in I Chron 21:1 where we finally see the word
    satan appearing as a proper noun, thus reflecting a further development
    in the concept of Satan as an identifiable individual.

    The first appearance of the word satan is as follows:

	Then he showed me the high priest standing before the angel of the
	Lord, and The Accuser standing at his right hand to accuse him.  And
	the Lord said to the Accuser, "The Lord rebuke you, O Accuser!  The
	Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!  Is not this man a brand
	plucked from the fire?" (Zech. 3:1-3, NRSV)

    Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, authors of the Anchor Bible
    commentary on this section of Zechariah, discuss "the Accuser" in
    detail.  Commenting on its appearances in the Hebrew Bible, they say: 

        One of three cases in the Hebrew Bible in which this term occurs in
	reference to a figure in Yahweh's court, the other two cases being
	the prologue to Job and 1 Chron 21:1....Only in 1 Chron 21:1 does it
	appear without the definite article as a proper noun.  Here and in
	Job it is still a common noun, with the definite article making it a
	title, "the Accuser", as "the Prosecuting Attorney."...

    Commenting on the subsequent development of the "satan" concept in
    Hebrew thought, the commentary notes:

	Neither in Job nor in Zechariah is the Accuser an independent entity
	with real power, except that which Yahweh consents to give him.  The
	figure thus originates with the Divine Council and satan represents
	one of the "sons of God" who is given increasing power as in the
	Prologue of Job, where Yahweh has given him control over a variety
	of negative and hostile forces in the world.  While a growing
	delineation of the forces of evil or hostility is to be discerned in
	Zech 3, the Prologue to Job constitutes the premier example in the
	Hebrew Bible of such power being vested in a negative personality.
	The emerging personification of the figures in the Divine Council,
	both positive and negative, is a major figure of exilic and
	postexilic biblical writing, and the Book of Zechariah bears
	unmistakable testimony to this process.

    Marvin H. Pope, author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Job, makes the
    following comments on the use of "the Accuser" in the first two
    chapters, elaborating on what Meyers and Meyers stated:

	Note the definite article, as in Zech iii 1-2, which shows that the
	term is a title and not yet a proper name.  The figure here is not
	the fully developed character of the later Jewish and Christian
	Satan or Devil....The Satan is one of the members of the divine court
	and comes with other attendants to present himself at the celestial
	court and report on the fulfillment of his duties.

    Both of these commentaries mention the relationship of the idea of "the
    Accuser" to similar roles found within Persian secret police system that
    the Jewish people encountered during the neo-Babylonian period.
	
    Regarding the passage in I Chronicles, Jacob Myers writes in the Anchor
    Bible commentary notes:  "The idea of Satan was not new (cf. Job i-ii;
    Zech iii 1) but his appearance here as an opponent of God is a further
    development. Elsewhere the Satan is a member of the heavenly court whose
    business was to accuse the guilty; here is is the instigator, or
    inciter, to evil and, as the name without the article shows, a
    personality with a will and purpose of his own."
    
    James M. Efird, PhD., Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and
    Interpretation of the Duke University Divinity School, discusses the
    development of the concept of Satan in the Harper's Bible Commentary,
    beginning with the three references in the Hebrew Bible, and continuing
    with further development later on. He points out that even in 1
    Chronicles, Satan "is not yet the embodiment of evil."  He also notes
    that the Hebrew Bible never identifies "the serpent" of Genesis 3 with
    Satan.  But the Hebrew concept of Satan continued to change:
    
        It is during the late postexilic period (after ca. 200 B.C.) and in
        the intertestamental literature that one first finds the development
        of the idea of Satan that is assumed in the NT writings.  Probably
        under the influence of Persian ideology, there developed in Hebrew
        thought the idea of a dualism of good versus evil.  There existed
        already the idea that God had a heavenly host, a group of messengers
        to carry out his work and orders.  The Persians also believed in a
        ruler over the powers of evil, who had many servants in this realm
        known as demons.  The Hebrews could easily understand and assimilate
        such thinking into their already existing ideas, but they had not
        yet developed any idea of a major being as a leader of the forces of
        evil.  Thus, in the development of the religious thinking of the
        Jewish people, several different names were used to designate the
        leader of those forces hostile to God:  the devil, Belial (also
        Beliar), Mastemah, Apollyon (meaning the "Destroyer"), Sammael,
        Asmodeus, or Beelzebub.  Satan, however, came to be the most usual
        designation (in Greek, Satan was translated as "the devil"). 
        Another interesting development took place during this period: the
        figure of the devil or Satan came to be identified with "the
        serpent" of Genesis 3.

        Satan and his cohorts then came to represent the powers of evil in
        the universe and were even known in Jesus' time as the Kingdom of
        Satan, against which Jesus had come to fight and to establish the
        Kingdom of God (e.g., Mark 3:23-26).  The demons were considered to
        be the cause of sickness, both physical and mental, and of many
        calamities of nature (e.g., storms, earthquakes); in general, they
        were the forces responsible for much of human sin (and therefore
        misery), and they were always opposed to God's purposes and God's
        people.

    In a nutshell:
    
    "satan" is not an entity.  It is a human being's perception of 
    seperation from God, which then is able to foster feelings of 
    fear, greed, prejudice, intolerance, despair, and all other 
    feelings associated with suffering.
    
    I believe that suffering serves a holy purpose.  It is one of the ways 
    we can awaken to God and transcend the perception of seperation.  It
    is one of the ways we can become more compassionate towards one another
    and all things in creation.
    
    God is compassion.  Satan and suffering is one of the roads to
    compassion.  Can we awaken to God, to compassion, without having had
    satan in our lives, without having suffered?
    
    Karen  

    
    Satan is a created being, Lucifer, angel of light who grew proud to the
    point of placing himself above God himself. He is the adversary, the
    acuser who acuses the brethren night and day against each other and
    before God. He has been defeated and is not under the lordship of
    Christ. Satan and his followers are to be defeated by the Church
    (someday) and the acuser is to be flung down (perhaps already has
    been). His primary purpose is to destroy people and render them
    neutral.
    
    Just some thoughts to get the ball rolling :)
    
    Jamey
    
    
    This ought to be fun.

    Having experienced the power of what was probably a very minor dark
    spirit, I assure you we're talking about awesome stuff.  This is no
    intellectual plaything, nor are these powers easily dismissed by a wave
    of doctrine.  
    
    DR

    
    I'm reminded of something that was discussed by Bill Moyers and
    Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth" series....
    
    The Moslem (hmmmm...should I mention this here) of Satan (Iblis)
    was that he is God's greatest lover.
    
    God created all the angels and told them to serve him.  Then God
    created man and told the angels to serve man.  But Satan so loved
    God that he would not bow to man, and so he was condemned to eternal
    damnation.  Satan only sustains himself through the memory of God's
    voice saying "go to hell".
    
    And isn't the greatest hell that of being separated from the one you 
    love?
    
    guy

    Guy .7,
    
    Whoa.  Now there's a radical concept... :-)
    
    But for the focus of this notesfile, it is perhaps more suitable 
    to orient discussions around the Christian portrayal/understanding 
    of satan.
    
    Thanks for the info though Guy,
    
    Karen                      

    
    re: .8 (Karen)
    
    That's funny, I perceived what you wrote in .4 as being quite similar
    to this idea.
    
    guy

    Popular images portray Satan as having horns on his head, red
    skin, cloven hooves for feet, a long arrow-tipped tail, and carrying
    a pitchfork or trident (not the nuclear submarine, not the gum).
    
    Where did you suppose this came from?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I agree with Karen.  I view satan a metaphor for evil rather than an
    actual being.  I also like Karen's expression of conceiving of satan as
    a human being's perception of separation from God.  This is manifested
    at both the individual level, and at the level of society insofar as it
    is distinct from the Kingdom of God.  Thus I view sexism, militarism,
    violence, hatred, and racism as manifestations of this separation, and
    therefore "satanic".
    
    -- Mike

    re 56.3
    	hey, Mike, you forgot Lucifer, bringer of light and fire and patron
    of technology. He is not, as (Jamey?) suggested, the same as "Satan",
    but a different bird entirely. For he comes not to accuse, but bringing
    gifts. Steel (and smog), computers (and PCBs), nuclear power (and
    radiation poisoning), and so much more (and SO much more). 
    	If Satan really means "the accuser", and I'm not doubting you here,
    then it makes a LOT of sense that we poor sinners should fear him (it).
    And if you tag on the context of "secret service" rather than "D.A."
    then that fear can only grow. The D.A. is generally just in all
    accusations while the "secret service" has been known to be involved in
    entrapment, the manufacturing of evidence, and outright skullduggery -
    and that's OUR secret service, the "other guys" are supposed to be
    worse.

    Guy,
    
    Okay.  Thanks for letting me know how .4 evoked the thoughts you
    had in .7. 
    
    I do not see as direct a comparison between my musings that satan
    may have been assigned a holy mission by God and the Moslem belief 
    that satan is God's lover and was told to "go to hell", as do you.
    
    It's helpful to know though.
    
    Karen 
                                                          

    
    
    
    
         ...satan (a fallen created being)......has NO attributes!!

re Note 56.14 by AYOV24::CFLOYD:

>          ...satan (a fallen created being)......has NO attributes!!

        You have me confused, since you just named two attributes: 
        "fallen" and "created" (and "existent" implied by "being").

        Are you implying that even the concept of Satan is null and
        void?

        (Or do you not know what the word "attribute" means?)

        Bob

    Wotcha Bob,
               re -1....I always thought that 'attributes' signified
                        a POSITIVE characteristic!!!...Maybe you could
                        enlighten me???
                        chris.

re Note 56.16 by AYOV24::CFLOYD:

>                re -1....I always thought that 'attributes' signified
>                         a POSITIVE characteristic!!!...Maybe you could
  
        An "attribute" is simply a characteristic.

        More specifically, it is a "word or phrase that serves to
        limit, identify, particularize, describe, or supplement the
        meaning" of a thing.

        "Attribute" can also mean "quality", but in the neutral sense
        of the word "quality", as opposed to its positive sense.

        Bob

    I remember studying Milton's Paradise Lost in college (No, HE wasn't
    lost in college; I was ;^))  The striking thing in the discussion was
    how Satan comes off as the most interesting character -- BY FAR -- in
    the epic, particularly when compared to God.
    
    What are the implications of that?  Do we relate more to Satan?  Is God
    boring, from a human perspective?  from Milton's?
    
    DR

    
    I think that is the essence of sinful nature, that by *nature*, we
    relate more to Satan than to God until rebirth of the Spirit through
    Jesus. 
    
    'God's Lover' is probably not far from the essence of the pre-rebellion
    relationship. Lucifer played music in the throne room and had the
    highest seat of honor if my scattered brain recollects correctly.
    
    Jamey

    The name "Lucifer" comes from a passage in Isaiah 14:12:

        How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
        How you are cut down to the ground,
          you who laid the nations low!

    Where does "Lucifer" fit into that passage?  Well, the Latin word for
    "light bringer" , "shining one", or "Morning Star", is Lucifer.  The
    King of Babylon was presumably being taunted in this passage by being
    called "Day Star, son of Dawn"; the reference was to his fall from
    power.  The New Jerusalem Bible comments that this reference is
    apparently based on a Phoenician model.  This passage, along with the
    next two verses, "display several points of contact with the Ras-Shamra
    poems".   Daystar and Dawn were two divinities, and verse 13 refers to
    the 'mount of Assembly', which was where these two divinities used to
    meet, similar to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology.

    The Church Fathers identified this fall of the Morning Star with
    Jesus's passage in Luke 10:18, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a
    flash of lightning."  Thus the connection was made between "Lucifer"
    and Satan.

    -- Mike

    
    
    So, is the conclusion that Satan and Lucifer are one and the same?
    
    Carole

    
    re: .18 (Don)
    
    That could be because more *human* attributes have been so willingly
    assigned to Satan.  That is, human attributes that assume the worst
    of motives.  And humans sure have a lot of negative attributes if 
    we look around us - it always will appear that way, given temporality
    and all that.
    
    guy

    Carole,
    	I'm not even sure if we've concluded that Satan is the generic term
    for one of God's secret police who are helping her test us or if Satan
    was God's lover who rejected third place or (third alternative). There
    are all sorts of stories, some Biblical and many not, that offer a
    variety of information, none of which is conclusive on many points. It
    is quite clear that God and "Satan" were willing to peacably coexist in
    the OT and that Jesus held "Satan" in low esteem. "Lucifer" either is
    another name for "Satan" or is a seperate entity who is roughly
    equivalent, does it really matter? I don't think so. Neither is all
    evil equal, but it's still evil, right?

    
    
    Hi Dave,
    
    I was asking the question out of curiousity to see what people believe
    and then to go back and ponder on some things I've read lately.
    Sometimes I wish I could go back to the beginning and see how it
    all came into being, and how we got to where we are.
    
    Carole

Job is usually dated in the second millenium B.C.  Not in the post-exilic
period.

I have been told that the Hebrew in Job is the oldest in the Old
Testament making a dating in the post-exilic period highly questionable.

Collis

    Scholars disagree among themselves on the dating of the book of Job. 
    Dating Job is complicated by the fact that the book may or may not be a
    composite work, and as a result some scholars believe that the prose
    prologue and epilogue were written at a different time from poetic
    body.  Although the prose sections have indications of a more archaic
    style, scholars differ on the significance of this, especially since
    this applies to the prose sections only.  It is certainly not
    inconceivable that Job was, in fact, written in the second millennium. 
    However, while tradition often held that it was that old, I don't
    believe that it is "usually" or necessarily dated that far back by
    scholars.  For example, the following citations show a later date for
    Job:

    New American Bible:  "The author of the book is not known; it was
    composed some time between the seventh and fifth centuries B.C"
    
    New Jerusalem Bible: "The likeliest, though still uncertain, date is
    the beginning of the fifth century B.C."
    
    Harper's Bible Commentary: "evidence suggests but does not prove that
    Job was composed and completed after the Babylonian exile."
    
    -- Mike

Thanks for entering those sources, Mike.

It was learning about the "old" words and phrases in Job that convinced
me (at that moment) that it is a second milleniem document.

Collis

    Mike, I said that "satan" is a metaphor for evil, not satanism.  In the
    Christian view of things, satan is evil; in other religious systems,
    that may or may not be the case.
    
    -- Mike

    If Satanists worship someone who is not evil, and if the satan that
    Christians describe is evil, then they are not the same satan--unless
    one person's "evil" is completely different from another person's.  I
    don't even believe that satan exists as an individual, Mike, so it is
    not clear to me how you can even "disagree" with my statement about
    satan being a metaphor for evil.  When I choose to describe something
    as "satanic", I am merely saying that it is evil.  Period.  If someone
    else wants to say that "satanic" is actually good, that is their
    prerogative.  But they are either talking about a different "satan"
    than I am, or else their definition of evil is different from mine.

    -- Mike

    Satan is real ! Satan is evil ! Satan wants your will. 
    
    I have a real concern for anyone who thinks otherwise.
    
    
    Come Lord Jesus
     

    This topic seems like an appropriate place to post the following
    second-hand transcript of a dialogue which allegedly took place over
    the air during a radio talk-show broadcast.  (I say allegedly because I
    haven't verified it for myself, although I'm more inclined to trust
    that distrust the people who passed it along.)
    
    Some friends of friends, visiting our area from South Africa, stayed
    wth some relatives of mine, and passed along this transcript (which was
    copied on-line by one of my relatives, who also works for DEC).
    
    The information I have says it was broadcast from Station 702 (News
    Talk-Radio 702), in the PWV Area of South Africa, on June 14, 1990.
    The radio host was Chris Gibbons; the caller was an unidentified woman.
    
    (I've also posted this in the DEJAVU and the CHRISTIAN conference,
    though it generated only a little bit of discussion.)
    ======================================================================
Chris Gibbons:  Hallow, Gibbons!

Woman: Chris Gibbons?

cg: Speaking

w: Hi! apparently you people are very interested in Satanism.

cg: We have an interest, yes. 

w: You do.  What is it that you really want to know about it?

cg: Why... why are you calling?  Why be ... why are you asking me this?

w: Right. We've been following the program very carefully and we've basically
   found it very amusing --- how all the Christians
   believe that they have the power to actually exorcise Satan.
   Basically we believe that they don't really know what they are talking
   about due to the fact that they're in exactly the same boat as us anyway.

cg: Are you a practicing Satanist?

w: Well, I do have enough knowledge to be speaking to you, should I
   put it that way.

cg: Let me put the question to you again,  Are you a practicing Satanist?

w: We do have a group that are practicing Satanists, yes.

cg: Now, what about some of the allegations that uh, have been
    made against practicing Satanists such as the sacrifice aspect, the sexual
    aspect and that kind of thing?

w: that is true.

cg: You do sacrifice?

w: Satanists do sacrifice, yes.

cg: What do you sacrifice?

w: It depends on the occasions, I'd say, but basically what we're trying to 
   put  forward is that everybody is Satanist one way or the 
   other.  The governments and all the churches have joined in merely
   by going to war against each other -- that is also a sacrifice which Satan
   enjoys.

cg: Let me put the question to you again -- what do you sacrifice?

w: What do we sacrifice?  As I said it depends entirely on the
   ritual.. If you could put a ritual forward to me I could give you an example.

cg:  Can you describe the kind of rituals that you undertake,  their purpose?

w:  The purpose for them is direct power and there is no bigger power 
    than in blood.  Blood force is the power.  Blood is power.  Blood is life.

cg: Have you ever committed a human sacrifice?

w: I myself?

cg: Yes

w: I might have viewed one but I myself don't commit anything.  
   There's a difference between leaders and followers.  

CG: Are you a leader or a follower?

w: I would say I'm a leader.

cg: An do the leaders practice the sacrifice or the followers?

w: The leaders merely allow the followers to do as their own heart
   desire is and basically mankind desire today is to kill and it has
   been inbred in him in many ways and that is how Satan has actually taken 
   hold of mankind.

cg: But now, surely the practice of sacrifice, of killing anything is against
    the wishes of that person or creature.

w: Not necessarily.

cg: Have you yourself ever witnessed a human being killed?

w: Well, our children do every day, merely when they put their 
   television on.

cg:  That want' the question that I asked you.

w: (laughs) You're very shrewd.

cg: Let me ask you another question -- the relationship between Satanism and 
    the rest of organized religion is defined as evil
    against good -- Satanism is supposed to be evil and everything else
    is supposed to be good.


w:  Well basically there is only one opposing organization and the rest of 
    the world is following Satan anyway, they just don't realize the are.

cg: What do you define as Satanism  -- the worship of the Devil?

w:  It's basically a totally open worship without any excuse.

cg: Without any excuse for what?

w: To cover up for what mankind really wants and has decided to 
   choose, any.

cg: You're saying that mankind is basically evil and therefore should
    just be left to get on with it?

w: No, there is going to be a big war very soon,  we're aware of
   that.  There are only two forces in the universe,  but mankind already
   made his decision long time ago.


cg:  We've  also had suggestions made to us that if people get involved with
     Satanism and then wish to leave it you put, shall we
     say, pressure on them not to leave it.

w: No, we don't .  They've basically  opened themselves to the demons
   that Satan has working on earth and the demons put pressure on 
   them -- not us.

cg: So you're saying that the demons will sort them out.

w:  They always do.

cg:  What is a demon, in fact?

w: A demon is one a of the angels that work with Satan,  that opposed
   right from the beginning.

cg: One of the angels that fell from grace?

w: That's it.

cg: Do you not worry -- and here I put it into a Christian context -- do you
    not worry that by following  the devil you're soul will be cast into 
    eternal damnation?

w:  Everybody dies anyway,  the soul is not immortal, that is where man is 
    totally misled in the first place.  You have one lifetime in which you
    choose and you either choose materialistic gain or spiritual gain and
    anybody who chooses materialistic gain has already made his choice.

cg: What about people who choose spiritual gain, what happens to them?

w: Well, that they know about -- we're obviously not interested in that or else 
   we wouldn't do what we do.

cg: Isn't it a short-term gain?

w: Well, that's a personal choice, everyone has a free will. You either have a 
   good life or you have a lousy life.

cg: What's your life like?

w: I'm pretty content.

cg: What can you tell me? What are you allowed to tell me about the kind of 
    rituals that you practice?

w: Nothing.

cg: Why is that if it's an open religion?

w: Because everybody knows anyway, you've been discussing it all the time, so
   why should I confirm what everybody knows and everybody agrees or else they
   wouldn't condone the kind of entertainment they enjoy.

cg: Do you use drugs during the rituals?

w: most people do today.

cg: And again we come back to the aspect of sacrifice. what about sex,
    does that play a part in the rituals?

w: Very much so.

cg: How did you get involved in it? Can I ask you that?

w: How did I get involved in it?

cg: Yes, how did you start?

w: With astrology

cg: Yes . . . 

w: And the one leads to the other, depends on how powerful you want to
   become I suppose.

cg: How powerful are you?

w: (Laughs.) I can't say.

cg: But you tell me you're a leader of one of the satanic -- is it a
    coven -- is that the right word?

w: No, it's a very big group that's running a lot.

cg: Now, I don't know where you're calling from.

w: No, you don't.

cg: Is it in what we call 702 land, the PWV area?

w: That's correct.

cg: Is Satanism very wide-spread in this part of South Africa?

w: It's everywhere.

cg: Is there any way of knowing that your neighbor is involved in it or not?

w: Well we all know each other.

cg: I mean, if I look over my garden fence, would I be able to tell that
    my neighbor is or is not a Satanist?

w: It depends on what way they show their Satanism, merely by being neutral
   a person is a Satanist. This is what I am trying to explain to you. Satan
   has got everybody who is neutral, there is no such thing as neutrality, you
   either are or you aren't -- it's that simple and the only way you can't be
   is by being a total worshiper of the original Creator which only one sect 
   on earth is any way.

cg: Which sect is that?

w: I can't say, they know who they are.

cg: Why all this secrecy?

w: Why all the secrecy? Well, why all the secrecy? uhm . . . Wouldn't you
   say that the Biblical Scriptures are fairly secret?

cg: No, not at all.

w: Exactly. Anyway that's all I can say, that basically the reason I phoned
   is to basically let you know that whoever is truly interested should know
   that just about everybody on earth today is a Satanist anyway, one way
   or the other, it just depends on how you want to worship him. There are
   many ways of doing it, you can worship him through making God your money
   you can worship him by doing sacrifices, you can worship him by being 
   promiscuous, so people don't realize how powerful he really is, it's just 
   that simple.

cg: At that we'll leave it.

w: Thank you

cg: Thank you for calling.

w: Bye.
_

Re:  56.31

Hi, Mike!

  >At the base of the conflict I find that it is the "eschatology" of many
  >to *join* with the ALL or God in a blissful state of no-mind. 

  >No-mind means no consciousness, no recoginition of self, no capibility 
  >of doing.

Mike.  You wouldn't be "purposely" distorting Christian teaching, would you?  
Or are you really unaware that Christians (as far as I know) universally
believe that we maintain identity, recognition of self and an individual
consciousness after death for eternity?  Well, if you didn't you do now -
and I apologize for questioning your motives.

  >Even the eastern religious schemes look forward to oblivion or
  >*joining* with the All in a state of no-mind. 

It is true some eastern religions believe in the "mind-meld" theory.

Collis

Re:  56.39

  >It's just that there is a huge amount of disinformation going around in 
  >the States on this subject. 

So that's it.  Satan's just getting bad press!  :-)

Collis

Re:  56.42

    >>...are you really unaware that Christians (as far as I know) universally 
    >>believe that we maintain identity, recognition of self and an individual 
    >>consciousness after death for eternity?  
    
  >One has to look behind the words to see the reality. That particular
  >afterlife reality is mindless. It (the unsexed believer) _cannot_
  >question (and I mean *seriously* question) God nor the Lamb, nor for
  >that matter anything else. 

In one sense I agree with you.  The believer has made an eternity-long
decision when s/he accepted Jesus Christ.  Never again will that be an
issue for him or her.

However, that does *NOT* mean that the believer does not have an identity,
does not recognize self or does not have an individual consciousness.
Nor does it mean that the believer does not have choices about what to
do.  Only that those choices will be in accord with what is best and
right (i.e. with God's Will).  It still seems to me that you're bringing
in a lot of negative baggage into this discussion.  That your goal is
not to honestly and carefully consider the topic but rather to bash
Christianity.  Hopefully you'll tell me I'm wrong and I will certainly
apologize for misreading your motives.

  >What are the saints going to do with all that free time? No sex, no
  >parties, no good movies, no adventure. This is not as flippant as it
  >sounds. 

This certainly is a serious question.  The answer is that we will worship
God and bask in his love.  Your question assumes a wordly perspective
which is simply out of place in heaven.  The pleasures of worshipping
God in heaven and basking in his light and love *far* outweigh the sex,
parties and movies that we can engage in here.  This is my understanding
from what the Bible says.
    
  >Why they are locked up in the New Jerusalem aren't they?  A new heaven
  >and a new earth? 

Are you comparing this to being locked up today on the planet earth
and asking which is better?

  >Tell me Collis, is God or the Lamb going to MURDER the earth, and the
  >whole universe to satisify the writer of Revelations fantasy?

No.  Those who suffer punishment for ever and ever will suffer this
because of God's justice, not because of God's revelation to John.
    
  >That mistake is just what the writer of Revelations did. He projected his
  >psychological set onto the physical world. He was wrong for doing that.
  >Saul did the exact same thing.

I'm glad you've explained this to him.  I'm sure he didn't want to
mislead anyone.  :-)
    
  >The writer of Revelations is mindless, responding to his pshyco-set,
  >and never questions himself nor examines his assumptions for even half
  >a second.

You sound like you knew him personally.  Was the writer of Daniel (who
referred to some of the same future events) also responding to his
psycho-set?

Collis

Re:  56.43

  >What I think we are seeing is the moral collapse of organized 
  >religious schemes. The sufferers of this collapse will tend to place 
  >the blame elsewhere.

This certainly is human nature.  I hope all humanly organized religious
schemes *do* collapse.  Then we'll just be left with God's plan of
salvation!
    
  >Self-responsibility is not a major concern of the Savior schemes.

Au contraire.  Self responsibility (sanctification in Christian parlance)
is a MAJOR them in Christianity.  (I'm equating Christianity with "Savior
schemes", if that's all right with you.)  Seeking forgiveness regularly
for sins and praying for guidance and strength to do what is right in
God's eyes play a MAJOR, MAJOR role in the lives of serious Christians.
But, then again, I think you're aware of this.

Collis

re Note 56.31 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>     While this is the Christian perspective notesfile it would be a good
>     thing to examine the opposite polarity of the stated intent merely as a
>     sanity check.
  
        Mikie,

        I have not read the rest of the replies under this topic, but
        I do want to warn you and others that a general digression
        into Satanism as such is not appropriate in this conference.

        A mention of Satanism for the purpose of comparing and
        contrasting with Christian doctrine is appropriate, as long
        as there is still that other side of the dialogue.

        Bob the mod

    re .39 (CSC32::MORGAN)
    
>    Thanx Mark, would you agree that this article is hearsay? No one has
>    verified it. And it could be disinformation. 
>    
>    What I've found to be true is that certain "experts" will stoop to any
>    level to make a buck, including finding sick people to say they have
>    done hidious things for Satan.
    
    	Well, without actually having seen an official transcript from the
    radio station itself, I can't say with 100% assurity that the entire
    dialogue isn't a fiction, but as I already expressed, I trust the
    people who passed it along (since they were, in fact, other Witnesses,
    and Witnesses aren't usually in the habit of fabricating
    disinformation, though I suppose we're as likely as the next person to
    be victims of a hoax).
    
>    Has anyone written a letter, including the transcript to see if it
>    actually happened?
    
    	Well, I haven't, but if anyone has any suggestions as to how to go
    about making contact with the station, I'd be glad to hear them.  How
    does one find out information about people and places (like the radio
    station) in South Africa?
    
>    I'm not attacking you Mark. It's just that there is a huge amount of
>    disinformation going around in the States on this subject. 
    
    	I appreciate your saying so, and I don't find any fault with you
    for being skeptical, since I'm sure that you are correct that real
    disinformation exists concerning satanists, and etc.  (That kind of
    stuff exists about my religion, too.)
    
    	What caught my attention, though, is that certain things which were
    said by the woman sound a whole lot like things that I believe, and
    which few, if any other (Christian) religions, that I am aware of,
    teach.  [The point about viewing the religious world in terms of
    organizations is one.]  
    
    	I posted it, though, so that people could make their own judgments
    as to its worth (or lack thereof).
    
    
    								-mark.

Re:  56.47

  >Is it conceivable that one could _change_ their mind, their decision
  >for Jesus Christ? 

Some believe it is.  Others believe it is not.  Personally, I'm in the
"once saved, always saved" camp.

  >Why would someone do that? 

Sin.  :-)

  >Per Biblical authority one must surrender their will to Christ, they
  >must needs die and Jesus must live (per Pauline Christianity). The
  >natural man is killed (emotionally) that the spiritual man may live.
  >This is the meaning behind being born again. The old Man dies, the
  >servant of Jehovah (the spiritual man) is born. "Not my will God, but
  >your's, on earth as it is in heaven."  

Preach it!

  >Why should anyone "bask in love?" Even God's love? 

What is better than "basking in love?"  From my understanding, nothing.
Unconditional love, particularly from God, is as powerful a force as
any that exists.  And the joy of the one who experiences it is beyond
description.

  >"The universe is my backyard." Q 

Why settle for this corrupt universe when you can have an uncorrupted
universe (heaven)?
    
  >These are rhetorical questions but they do have a purpose.

I'm sorry, I missed their purpose.
    
  
  >God is a facist?? Willing to commit genocide? Is your image of God
  >really a supreme cosmic gneocidal manic? Are you aware what you are
  >saying? Do you realize what you are doing to yourself with this?  

I know you're new to this conference, so you already missed the discussion
of God committing genocide.  Yes, God has committed genocide in the
past.  However, he will not do so in the future because there will be
*at least* one person from *every* tribe and nation who freely says,
"Jesus Christ is LORD".
    
  >Now you know something the writer of Revelations didn't.

Alas, tis not true.  I am none the wiser for your sharing this with me.  :-(

Collis

re Note 56.48 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>     Every religious perspective has its polarity which is really the secret
>     side of itself.
  
        Ok -- since it is "secret" how do we know what it is?  More
        to the point of my moderator warning, how do I distinguish
        between a true "secret side" of Christianity (even accepting
        that such exists -- which I don't) and any other random topic
        plucked out of a hat?

  
>     Perhaps you've scanned the Gnostic perspective of Christianity? If so
>     you'll readily see that an inversion (per their perspective) has
>     occurred. Which side of that inversion are we on?

        Ya got me.  I don't even care to know.

        Bob

    re: .37, Mikie,
    
>>    Come Lord Jesus
>    
>    If all you can do is wait till Jesus comes (>evil snicker<) then
>    Satanist have NOTHING to worry about.
    
    This conference, unlike RELIGION, attempts to discuss topics from a 
    *Christian Perspective*.  As such, I respectfully request that we refrain
    from sarcasm toward the various Christian perspectives of others.  I 
    believe it is especially appropriate for those who do not claim to *have*  
    a *Christian* perspective  to refrain from such sarcasm and put-downs 
    of Christian perspectives presented here!
    
    I differ significantly with Collis on many -- possibly most -- issues, 
    but I deeply appreciate and respect the manner in which he discusses 
    things here.  I do not appreciate this comment directed toward his
    note.  I believe we can do better.
    
    I am not a moderator, but I care deeply about this conference and
    about preserving its tone and purpose.  
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy Smith

    	Somehow I got to the "goodbyes" before I got to this. I rather
    thought that we had gotten rid of some overly sensitive paranoid cranks
    that we were better off without. Having read Mikie?'s input I have very
    much moderated my opinion on them. I still think they over-reacted but
    at least I can see that they had provocation. 
    
    Mikie?,
    	it's a good thing to have a good gadfly, a devil's advocate, but
    only when it serves to move the discussion along and expand upon the
    possibilities. If you drive them away then nobody benefits. We discuss
    to learn, to grow - well, I do. How can I learn or grow if you offend
    and panic those who are least like me in their beliefs?
    	Satan is a Judeo-Christian concept(s). Satan is thought to be an
    evil force by most of those living in Christian countries. Other
    religions have other "evil forces". You cannot talk of Satan except in
    the Christian concept, anything else is blowing smoke - using the same
    word to mean something intentionally different. Those who knowingly and
    intentionally embrace evil are evil. It is my understanding that this
    is the case with Satanists in America and England - and that many of
    them are, at best, borderline insane. To put forward the embrassing of
    evil as a reasonable alternative to the embrassing of love is something
    I find objectionable. 

    Mikie .56,
    
    If you are interested in 
    
    > ...playing the game of good natured debate.
    
    then, consider carefully the words you use in your discussions.  They
    are oftentimes harsh, cutting, snide, and demeaning.  This may be your
    idea of good-nature, but it is not for others.  If you wish to
    hold good-natured debates, you will have to conform in some ways and do
    so with a common language where others can see your intentions more
    clearly.  If good-natured debate is what you wish to create, then you 
    need to work harder at this Mikie.
    
    Also, regarding your comment:
    
    > The human mind is too important to waste on small ideas, ancient and
    > archaic memes.
    
    I agree, and I resent anyone cramming _their judgement_ of my ideas 
    down my throat.  
    
    Karen 

    
    Mikie? makes a good point about himself in .56.  Having met him I
    can vouch for his character as being one of good intentions (tell
    me I'm right, Mikie?. :-) in his search for his concept of truth
    and the irradication of ignorance.
    
    I think that if we have problems with someone's words, that usually 
    means that they seem to threaten our own personal paradise of ideas 
    (that we've grown so comfortable with).  I doubt we will cease to
    exist because of the influx of a few consciousness-expanding ideas.
    
    And I mean that in terms of the individual, as well as this conference.
    
    guy

    
    >If all you can do is wait till Jesus comes (>evil snicker<) then
    >Satanist have NOTHING to worry about.
    
    I find nothing offensive about this remark. There are plenty of things
    I find offensive about Mikie's articulations, but this is not one.
    
    I think that this is one of the most profound statements in this
    conference to date. With the current state of the Church, Satanists
    indeed have little/nothing to worry about. Much more work must happen
    in the bride before Jesus comes, though that ultimate hope is life
    giving.
    
    
    Jamey

    Mikie?,
    	no, we can't talk - unless you want to call me or come to visit.;-)
    Who is the gadfly? YOU are. I have tried to be but your activities have
    totally eclipsed mine in every way. Protest all you want, I don't care.
    Just try this on for size: GADFLY ... 2. One that acts as a provocative
    stimulus.  That anybody you know ?  Ignorance is never a gadfly, only a
    bug-a-boo.  And don't complain to me about being SET HIDDEN, I didn't
    do it and doubt if I would approve but you really do push all the
    limits you can and may indeed have stepped over a line somewhere. It
    goes with the territory.
    	I cannot agree with you that Good and Evil are species specific
    concepts unless you are just refering to the existance of the concepts.
    What is Good and what is Evil are distinctly culture specific. Our
    culture is dualistic, more so than I would like, and therefore supports
    the concepts of specific Goods and Evils. There are those who have
    chosen to oppose society/culture in the strongest possible terms and
    have chosen to embrace that which they consider Evil. They do not seek
    to better society by their act, or to right a wrong, they seek to do
    wrong - something they believe is wrong. Of course, it's the "right
    thing" for THEM to do because they feel it gives them an edge, or a
    power or a thrill, but THEY accept that it's wrong - they have just
    decided that either the rules don't apply to them or that they don't
    care about the rules.
    	I agree with you about xenophobia and calcification of belief
    systems, I do not agree that these apply to me - in this case. I do NOT
    label anything that is "not like me" as Satanic or of the Devil. I'm
    not even sure there IS a Satan or Devil. I'm closer in belief to some
    Wiccans than to Collis, I think, but I have yet to rail at him as a
    false prophet or demon-spawn. (yet;'D) I am not the one who has defined
    anyone as a Satanist, they are self-defined.
    	And if I keep rambling, my note will be longer than yours and only
    call forth an even longer rebuttal which will ... so I'll close now and
    let somebody else take a swing at you. Ta...

Re:  56.58

Mikie,

  >To get through culture trance, for any genuine dialogue to take place, 
  >pointed questions have to be asked, strong words exchanged.

I disagree.  Strong words need *not* be exchanged for genuine dialogue.
I have many genuice dialogues without exchanging strong words.  Particularly
with my wife.  (I have never yelled at my wife.)

I do agree that questions need to be asked.  I'm not sure your definition
of "pointed" is the same as mine.  In my definition, this means a
question which gets to the heart of the issue.  It appears your definition,
of pointed, from the questions you ask, have more to do with shocking 
and jarring (which tend to produce an emotional response and thus 
actually *avoid* dealing with the real issue).

  >I ask why is there original sin and who benefits and I get the Bible
  >tape's response instead of a human mind questioning its authorities
  >and documents. 

Perhaps you haven't fully understood the respondents?  Some respondents
may have actually considered the evidence and come to a different
conclusion than you?  That certainly is the case for me.  Questioning is
useful when it expands your mind.  But to always question and never come to
a resolution is the work of a fool.  Questions should be asked and a
resolution come to (even if the resolution is: "not enough data for now"
or "I don't understand" or "I don't know).

There actually *is* a topic to discuss foundational questions such as
who a Christian is or what a literalist is or the inerrancy of the Bible.
It's not fruitful to bring those foundational questions up in most other
notes.  Just accept that the other person has resolved these questions
in a way different from you and deal with it appropriately.  However,
knowing you Mikie, I suspect that you won't take my advice.  :-)

Collis    

	We spent some time on Satanism in my Sociology of Religion class
and guess what?  Mikie was right!  Satanism is *not* necessarily what
you think!

	The Church of Satan focus is on the self, this-worldliness,
self-direction, and non-compliance to mindless submissiveness.  According
to the Church of Satan the holiest day of the year is *not* Halloween or
any ancient pagan festival.

Know what day it is?


			*Your OWN birthday!*

	The ones who are into ritual animal disembowelment and such are
most likely using a syncretic blend of folk religions that incorporate
many of the symbols and name of Satan.

	For further research, "the Satanic Bible," by LeVey.  In the Colorado
Springs B. Dalton Bookstores, I am told, the book is on constant reorder.

	Strange, eh?

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    Why advertise that book and author here?
    
    
    Peggy

    Peggy,
    
    	Intended as a mere FYI, rather than a promo.
    
    	As far as possible, I do want to dispell any preconceptions
    about any group or class of people (even Christian). ;-)
    
    	Will enter more on another string.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.64

	Richard,

	And you think that's okay?

ace

    Re. 67
    
    I know many who claim to be Christians who possess analogous or
    identical values to the adherents of the Church of Satan.  Let's
    be honest.  Such values are not as malevolent as most tend to
    fantasize about Satanists.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    	Richard has already specified that there are two very different
    groups claiming to be "Satanists" and that those who use the referenced
    book are the less problematic of the two. The other group is a group we
    all should be strongly concerned about and fearful of as they seem to
    promote hate and violence. The group that adheres to the "Satanists
    Bible" are not specifically unloving so much as self centered. I
    suspect that they adopted that name primarilly to raise the hackles on
    uninformed active Christians. And it works pretty well, too.

re.68

	And you think that is okay, too?

Ace

    Richard,
    	be calm. (sound a little strange coming from me?) Getting irritated
    only sets you up for falling prey to the vile double-negative. Besides,
    you own the moral and ethical high ground on this, it's up to ace to
    prove him(?)self. I don't think that's gonna happen.
    
    	Dave

re.71

	Richard,

	The Lord Jesus Christ said.. "If anyone desires to come after Me, let 
him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to
save his soul-life shall lose it; but whoever loses his soul-life for My
sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited if he should gain the
whole world, but forfeit his soul life? Or what shall a man give in exchange
for his soul-life? Matt 16:24-26

	Which matters here? What self-proclaimed followers of Satan assert?
(whether they sacrifice chickens or are selfish, worldly, etc.)
What worldly christians assert? What Ace or Richard assert? No, none of these.

You stated...

>The Church of Satan focus is on the self, this-worldliness,
>self-direction, and non-compliance to mindless submissiveness.

	This is clearly in opposition to the words of Jesus. Self, worldliness,
Self-direction, rebellion are anti-christ and are attributes of Satan. But
you said... 

>    I know many who claim to be Christians who possess analogous or
>    identical values to the adherents of the Church of Satan. 

	And judgement will begin at the house of God. For a believer who has
been ensnared into such desires will be judged by the Lord Himself. 
(Matt 16:27). Because values are the same, does it legitimize the value? No, of
course not. then you say to me....

>    Is your life totally selfless?  Are you, at all times, submissive
>    to the Holy Spirit and under the control of the Holy Spirit?

	No, but I'm in the process. The denying of the self is a daily process
(Luke 9:23). This is the Lord's expectation of His followers and this is where
my heart is set. And He also supplies us with the grace to fulfill those 
expectations through the Holy Spirit. But whether I experience the denial of 
the self as a reality or in word only makes no difference, for each one will 
give account to the Lord for our own actions, behaviors, words, and thoughts. 
We are and will be without excuse. In that day, ethics and morals will matter 
none. Only whether we lived out His Life in us, which can only occur by 
experiencing death to the self. 

When we live in ourselves we are expressing Satan's life and not the Lord's 
(Matt 16:23).

Regards,
ace
	

	

    re .70
    
    Is your life totally selfless?  Are you, at all times, submissive
    to the Holy Spirit and under the control of the Holy Spirit?
    
    I'll tell you what I think is *not* okay, okay?  I think it is
    not okay to make insensitive, uninformed, and malicious blanket
    statements about others.
    
    Is that very different from what you think, Ace?
    
    Richard

    Ace,
    
    	You *seem* to think that I am advocating Satanism.
    
    	That is a misperception on your part.
    
    	To acknowledge the existance of something is not the same thing as
    to promote it.  I leave verbal proselytizing to other folks.  If I
    lead anyone to the Way, let it be with my life.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.74

	Why yes, Richard. It did seem to me that you were suggesting that
"since these Satanists don't disembowel live chickens 8*) then perhaps they
are not as bad as we've been led to believe. Afterall many christians are the
same way, etc etc."

	Please accept my apologies if I mis-understood.

	Anyone who flies under the flag of Satanism is big trouble and in
big trouble in my estimation and a christian should not associate themselves or 
identify with it in anyway whatsoever.

regards,
ace

>	Anyone who flies under the flag of Satanism is big trouble and in
>big trouble in my estimation and a christian should not associate themselves
>or identify with it in anyway whatsoever.

ace,

	While I am in no way advocating Satanism, I apparently don't see the
matter in terms as clearly black and white as I suspect you do.

Peace,
Richard

As far as flying under any flag goes, I tend to sit with the Quakers and
the Jehovah's Witnesses.  These folks consider themselves Christians, you know.

Hi Richard,

	Sometimes we must stand firmly against certain matters.

	"Abhor that which is evil..."  Romans 12:9


have a nice weekend,
ace

    Sin is evil, no?
    
    Yet we all sin, no?
    
    Therefore we are all evil?
    
    Therefore we should abhor everyone?
    
    It also says "do not judge". Who are you to judge Satanists? Do you
    know any in order to judge them? What are their crimes?
    
    Just some thoughts.
    
    Pete.

>   Sin is evil, no?
>    Yet we all sin, no?
> Therefore we are all evil?
 
yes.
   
>  Therefore we should abhor everyone?
 
	Abhor the sin, love the sinner.
  
>    It also says "do not judge". Who are you to judge Satanists? Do you
>    know any in order to judge them? What are their crimes?
 
	This kind of interpretation of the Bible is inadequate. A thorough 
study of "judgement" in the Bible will reveal that God has already judged Satan
and his followers (Revelation 20:10,15). The demise of the self-proclaimed 
follower of Satan is precisely that, that is, the banner under which they align
themselves. They heap the judgement of God upon themselves.

	"Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of
this world be cast out" John 12:31

	"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
tormented day and night for ever and ever" Rev 20:10

	"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire" Rev 20:15


	Who can silently and passively watch fellow humans suffer this fate?
Even if I could, there is One dwells within Who cannot, and therefore I speak.

Ace

 

    This note consists of an exerpt from a commentary on an experience
    Bonnie and I, and our son Michael had with someone practicing black
    magic.  The author is Samuel P. Reinke, founder and Director Emeritus
    of The Universal Listening Post.  
    
         First, while it is true that Brother Paul paints a rather dark 
    picture of "the wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly world,  the
    rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this dark age."  (Eph. 6:12),
    yet he also points out that "no authority exists  without God's
    permission, and the existing authorities have been  put there by God." 
    (Rom. 13:1 -- both quotations from NEB)   This is to say that there is
    Only One Power - God!  But, since each of  us, by virtue of the Christ
    in us (recognized or not) has access  to that Power, we can, through
    our separated consciousness - our  ego - misuse that power to try to
    achieve our own ends.  To put it  differently, then, the power you
    encountered was/IS God - but God seemingly misused, distorted, made
    evil by  some other "power" ..... none of which could happen in
    reality,  i.e., in the Kingdom of Heaven.  
   
          Yours in the Limitless Purpose of Love, Peace and Joy!
                                                             Dad

    That reminds me of Matthew Fox's definition of evil--that it is not the
    absence of good, but rather the misuse of good.
    
    -- Mike

    Ace,
    	you seem intent on being harshly judgemental about people and
    things of which you have almost no knowledge. While this seems much in
    line with your belief that you should not think (my understanding from
    a reply a few back), it also flies in the face of the warning to judge
    not lest you be judged. Also, I find little to admire in either
    attitude. Hating people and/or things with a lack of knowledge thereof,
    claiming that knowledge is not needed, responding mindlessly, lumping
    together those who would not condemn out of hand with those you WOULD
    condemn, without evidence or thought, out of hand, these sound to me
    like bigotry and prejudice. What do they sound like to you ?  It is my
    opinion that bigotry and prejudice are evil, are forms of hate, do you
    agree with this ?  I don't believe anyone benefits when you fight evil
    with evil or hate with hate - and I'm sure any of the biblical scholars
    here can provide numerous quotes which strongly suggest that Christ
    supports this position. Will you accept that ?  LOVE is the spirit,
    love is the answer. Ignorance is a crime. Hate is a sin. Forgive me if
    I hesitate to accept anyone's pious "hate the sin, love the sinner"
    until they have shown some spark of compassion for those they brand as
    enemy.

Re:  56.82

  >you seem intent on being harshly judgemental about people and
  >things of which you have almost no knowledge. 

except, of course, the (perfectly true and accurate) knowledge that the
Bible gives.

  >Hating people and/or things with a lack of knowledge thereof,
  >claiming that knowledge is not needed,... 

Perhaps this could more adequately be worded, "claiming that knowledge
beyond a high-level knowledge is not needed".  In which case, this
is quite true (according to the Bible).

  >...these sound like bigotry and prejudice. What do they sound like to you?

Bigotry and prejudice both assume either an irrational fear or hatred
or a fear or hatred based on a lack of relevant knowledge.  Neither is
the case here.  (It is a very rational hatred based on the true
knowledge of who Satan and his followers are.)

  >Hate is a sin. 

Hate is only a sin when it is inappropriate.  God, himself, hates that
which is evil and wrong (i.e. sin).

Collis

re - 1

	Well said.

Ace

    re: .83 & .84
    
    unworthy of further comment

    re .83
    
    Extremely well said!

    Satanism, witchcraft, and the New Age movement are each cultic
    in orientation.  While a high degree of virtuousity is normative
    in each, neither Satanism, nor witchcraft, nor the New Age claim
    to be exclusively legitimate, thus making each a cult by sociological
    typology.

   *However, each is distinctly different, and it is erroneous to lump
    them together as being the same thing, or even almost the same thing.*

    Satanism, as cited by Rasche in his book _Paint It Black_, is a bizarre,
    syncretic blend of folk religion and symbolism associated with the forces
    of darkness.  It is used to enhance personal power and render its
    adherents invincible, particularly in the carrying out of illegal and
    dangerous activity.  Its rituals are characterized by sadistic mutilations
    and sacrificial human slaughter.  Rasche's understanding of Satanism,
    it must be pointed out, is less than complete.

    Witchcraft, or Wicca which means the "Old Relgion", is not far from nature
    worship.  Witchcraft incorporates very little theodicy.  It centers on
    being fully alive and in harmony with nature.  Some are attracted by
    witchcraft's emphasis on the Goddess; that is, the Divine entity as
    feminine in gender.  Witchcraft, suggests Adler, enables the individual
    to become so attuned and in sympathy with the ways of nature that one may
    interact with it and, to some degree, even "bend" or manipulate it.

    The New Age welds ideas, science, technology, and theology.  While
    typically virtuoso in religiousity, New Age is both highly pluralistic
    and non-institutional.  There may exist New Age bookstores and the like,
    but there exists no corporate body or authority who can speak for, or
    on behalf of, all New Agers.  In addition, there is no such thing as
    proselytizing in the New Age Movement.

Re:  .87

  >In addition, there is no such thing as proselytizing in the New Age
  >Movement.

Perhaps you meant to say that there is not an organized proselytizing.
There is a great battle going on between those who hold New Age beliefs
(whatever they are :-) ) and those who oppose New Age beliefs because
they conflict with their own beliefs (whatever they are).  I think that
"proselytizing" (an attempt to convert someone from one doctrine or belief
to another) goes on all the time in this area.  It is just not nearly
as "formal" in the New Age Movement as it is in other movements (such
as Christianity).

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    There is a big difference between *sharing* one's beliefs during a
    discussion and feeling obligated to convert others to one's belief
    system.  The latter is what I see as proselytizing.  The former is not.  
    
    
    Nanci

Re:  .89

Nanci,

I agree completely that there is a big difference between sharing and
trying to convert.


There are many new agers who are trying to convert.  Why?  Because it
affects their lives.  It affects their schools.  It affects their work.
It affects their relationships.  The same is true of many Christians.
It may well be that most new agers (and most Christians) do not pursue
this very vigorously.  But some certainly do.  Don't you think so?

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    I've never seen any evidence of it.  I belong to a "New Age" church. 
    (The church doesn't term itself that but by the way that you use the
    term I think that it would fit your definition of the term.)  When
    visitors come for the first time they are acknowledged by applause and
    given a flower and a liitle brochure about the church.  They are asked
    to fill out a questionaire *if they would like more information* and a
    name tag if they would like.  There is no obligation to do anything. 
    They are welcomed and then it's up to them.  The church doesn't believe
    in trying to "convert" people because we don't believe that people all
    have seperate paths to walk and my path may not be right for you now or
    ever.
    
    Nanci

I was not thinking primarily of New Age "churches".

Rather, I was thinking of the push in our culture to New Age through 
the books that are pushed on children on school, the business seminars
based on New Age philosophies that are becoming more and more common
in the business world and the many other more subtle ways in which
those who believe the New Age philosophies try to spread their
beliefs.

The New Age movement does its proselytizing in a different way that a
Christian church might.  For example, it is not nearly as well organized.
But there is a grass roots effort and there are some who recognize
exactly what the battle is and what is at stake.  Because there is a
battle.  The question is, will we have the Lord Jesus Christ rule our
hearts and minds?  Or our we going to build a "better" world primarily
by ourselves?

Christianity gives one answer.  The New Age movement, despite the rheteric,
gives an entirely different answer.

Collis

    I agree with your definition of "proselytize", Nanci.  Ideas can and
    often do spread simply as a result of a mutual sharing of beliefs,
    without anyone necessarily proselytizing or trying to convert others. 
    Given the fact that "New Age" beliefs are generally tolerant of the
    existence of mutually co-existing belief systems, from your perspective
    (and mine), the term "proselytize" seems inappropriate and misleading
    when applied to a perceived spread of New Age ideas.

    On the other hand, from the perspective of fundamentalist/evangelical
    Christianity, tolerance of mutually co-existing belief systems seems to
    be inconceivable.  As a result, the spread of ideas that don't jibe
    with the orthodoxy are perceived as a serious and seductive threat to
    the preferred theological hegemony.  After all, the fate of our eternal
    souls are seen to be at stake (and no doubt Satan is behind any such
    "dangerous" religious ideas), so any time offending ideas spread, it is
    the Divine Mandate of the preservers of the faith to march Onward like
    good Christian Soldiers--because for them, it *is* a "battle".
    
    The mere fact that offending ideas spread at all is perhaps perceived
    as being necessarily due to proselytizing.  From that perspective, this
    then calls for a response that involves not just sharing one's own
    orthodox beliefs, but in addition actively going on the offensive
    against the targeted beliefs--which in this case are those of the New
    Age movement, but could just as easily be Roman Catholicism, or
    Unitarianism, or Mormonism, or whatever the bugbear of the day happens
    to be.

    -- Mike

    Thanks for articulating that so clearly, Mike.  I couldn't have said it
    better.  
    
    Collis...what he said!  ;-)
    
    Nanci

    re: .92, Collis,
    
    I have a *lot* of trouble with the jump from what is happening in places
    in our culture to the "New Age" and the "New Age Conspiracy" labels
    that some Christians attach to those happenings!
    
    For example, most school boards want the best of scientific theory
    taught in their schools.  The best current scientific theory includes
    evolution.  That's the current *scientific* understanding, not a "New
    Age" understanding, even though New Age folks may *also* believe in 
    evolution!
    
    And, for example, some school texts and courses and some business seminars
    are based on recent and current *psychological* thought, tools, and
    exercises, including values clarification and the building of
    self-esteem and a "can-do" attitude.  Once again, these are *not* 
    properties of New Agers!
    
    It amazes me that because New Agers have been eclectic in adopting
    scientific and psychological teachings that some Christians do not
    accept, those scientific and psychological teachings are now seen as
    being "New Age philosopies" that are pushed on us unsuspecting souls
    by those naughty New Agers.  
    
    My friend, I heard about and believed those things *many* years before 
    I *even heard* of a "New Ager!"
    
    *IF* there is a "push in our culture to New Age" it is in spite of, not
    because of, "New Agers."  (It may even be because of the leading of the
    Holy Spirit!  Otherwise, how could it be taking hold -- if it is?)
    
    I am constantly amazed at those who see "battles" and "conspiracies" going
    on everywhere (not necessarily *you*, Collis :-) ).  I've done enough
    studying and work in organizational development to know how difficult
    it is to get organization and consensus among people who are *trying*
    to form a working organization; it would be next to impossible for
    there to exist the kind of elaborate New Age "conspiracy" that I
    sometimes here preached about on the radio as I drive to work!!  People
    simply don't have the time, energy, effort, etc., to get themselves
    together for the kind of "warfare" those preachers and teachers
    describe!!  It's sad that they have to get their audiences "all riled
    up" so that they will send money...
    
    Now, if they want to attribute the warfare to Satan and/or worldliness,
    I still won't agree, but at least it will make more sense from the
    context of their own beliefs.  (Of course, it probably won't generate
    quite as much money...)
    
    No offense meant and please excuse my tangent,
    Nancy
    

re Note 56.92 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Rather, I was thinking of the push in our culture to New Age through 
> the books that are pushed on children on school, the business seminars
> based on New Age philosophies that are becoming more and more common
> in the business world and the many other more subtle ways in which
> those who believe the New Age philosophies try to spread their
> beliefs.

        Perhaps a better, more accurate term for this is "sales"
        rather than "proselytizing".

        I think that the organizations that are pushing these
        programs are doing so primarily because they are marketable,
        not because of fundamental conviction and drive (although no
        doubt some do).

        Bob

Re:  56.95
    
  >I have a *lot* of trouble with the jump from what is happening in places
  >in our culture to the "New Age" and the "New Age Conspiracy" labels
  >that some Christians attach to those happenings!

I have some trouble with this to.
    
  >For example, most school boards want the best of scientific theory
  >taught in their schools.  The best current scientific theory includes
  >evolution.  

That's debatable (and it *is* debated!)  However, many of those who want
evolution taught *also* want creationism *not* taught - despite the fact
that there is *a lot* of (scientific) evidence for creationism.  Doesn't
this seem to go overboard?  I certainly think so.  What they are pushing
is much more than a scientific belief, they are pushing a philosophy of
life where evolution is a fundamental aspect of that.  (Sort of like
what Christians are doing!)  To not recognize this is to miss the broader
picture.

  >Once again, these are *not* properties of New Agers!
    
I tend to agree.  However, since what *is* "New Age" is so hard to
define, you'll forgive me if I think that things that many "New Agers"
believe in and support are "New Age".

  >My friend, I heard about and believed those things *many* years before 
  >I *even heard* of a "New Ager!"

But that doesn't mean that something is not "New Age" now.  You've probably
heard it many times, but since it is appropriate here, I'll say it.  There
is nothing new in "New Age".  Therefore, what someone believed before "New
Age" has no bearing on whether it is now part of the "New Age".  The only
way to define "New Age" that I know of is to look at what New Agers are
saying now, writing now, reading now, doing now, etc.

  >*IF* there is a "push in our culture to New Age" it is in spite of, not
  >because of, "New Agers."  

You might wish to reconsider this statement.  Are you telling me that
it is the non-New Agers who are pushing the New Age movement, not the
New Agers?  I hardly think so.

  >...it would be next to impossible for there to exist the kind of elaborate 
  >New Age "conspiracy" that I sometimes here preached about on the radio as 
  >I drive to work!!  

I agree and I disagree.  I agree that there is not a single organization
in place pushing New Age.  However, there certainly are little pockets of
people in many ways and forms pushing New Age.  It is not an elaborate
conspiracy.  It is a grassroots effort from a people who are searching.

  >People simply don't have the time, energy, effort, etc., to get themselves
  >together for the kind of "warfare" those preachers and teachers
  >describe!!  

You are right, the vast majority do not.  However, there are certainly some
high energy, highly visible people who *do* very much push the New Age
Movement for whatever reason (they believe strongly in it, they make a
profit from it, etc.)
    
Collis

Re:  56.96

  >I think that the organizations that are pushing these programs are 
  >doing so primarily because they are marketable, not because of 
  >fundamental conviction and drive (although no doubt some do).

Good point.  It is a mixture of sales and proselytizing.  To some extent,
the original reason for pushing a program becomes irrelevant once you
do push the program.  At that point, you are "proselytizing" - although
it may be because of money rather than because of personal belief.

Colliis

    Collis,
    	you seem amazingly willing to see plots and conspiracies in just
    about every action that frightens or angers you. Text books that teach
    what the evidence indicates to be true, but which do NOT teach what YOU
    know - contrary to all evidence - to be true, these are a plot by "New
    Agers" to proselytize your children and steal them away from you. They
    are the devil's work - or something equally as sinister and dark and
    deserving of radical right-wing backlash.
    	So, who REALLY killed JFK ?  And who REALLY wrote all that stuff we
    so ignorantly attribute to W.Shakespeare ?  How about those Russians,
    what are they REALLY up to with this "liberalization" ?
    	OK, so I exagerate a little (or a lot, your choice), but I think
    your paranoia will get you little more than pity. You look a little
    silly standing there pointing to "them" as being behind (in this
    instance) scientific text books which present the best known
    explanation for the evidence at hand. Your reliance on the Bible as a
    scientific text is sure to draw little but ridicule or pity from the
    vast majority who do not accept the Bible in that light - or at all. Or
    did you have some other evidence in mind as support for "creationism"? 
    	New Agers, like UUs, do not go out to the multitudes to preach
    their message. Perhaps they publish their message and certainly they
    are willing to share with all who ask, but they just can't be bothered
    fighting hard for unwilling converts when there are more than enough
    who are willing to "convert" themselves after witnessing the joy in a
    friend. Surely you can accept that not everyone is like yourself ?

Re:  56.99 

Dave,

Must you (nearly) always lower yourself to ridicule?  Surely there are
better ways to carry on a discussion.

But to the points you made.

  >you seem amazingly willing to see plots and conspiracies in just
  >about every action that frightens or angers you.

This comment has practically no bearing on what I wrote.  What I *did*
say in the last note was:

  1)  I have some trouble with placing "New Age" and "New Age Conspiracy"
      labels on a lot of things

  2)  New Agers do support the spread of their ideas rather than
      resist the spread of their ideas.  (Who doesn't?)

  3)  There is no organized New Age Conspiracy.

  4)  There are pockets of individuals who are actively pushing New Age
      as the answer to our problems (in my mind, this includes both
      spiritual and physical problems).

  5)  The vast majority of people have no desire to put a lot of energy
      into any kind of movement, New Age or otherwise.

How you come up with your summary is a mystery known only to you.

  >Text books that teach what the evidence indicates to be true, but which do 
  >NOT teach what YOU know - contrary to all evidence - to be true, these are 
  >a plot by "New Agers" to proselytize your children and steal them away 
  >from you. 

What I said was more like, textbooks which ignore the clear (and in many
people's mind quite convincing) SCIENTIFIC evidence for creationism for
the reason of establishing a religious belief based on evolution indicate
a conspiracy.  They are *NOT* interested in a fair and balanced presentation
of both sides of the debate; they *ARE* interested in their side and their
side only being presented.  Are you claiming that this is the American
way?  To have disputed "facts" jammed down the throats of children so
that their religious orientation will shift away from a Judeo-Christian
concept of God?  This is what is happening.

  >OK, so I exagerate a little (or a lot, your choice)...

Your exageration is there for the express purpose of ridicule.  This is
a common debating technique when you can't respond to the points with
facts.  I think you can do better.  Can you?

Collis

    re: .56, Collis,
    
>What I said was more like, textbooks which ignore the clear (and in many
>people's mind quite convincing) SCIENTIFIC evidence for creationism for
>the reason of establishing a religious belief based on evolution indicate
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a conspiracy.
    
    On the contrary!  I believe that the vast majority of people who oppose
    the teaching of creationism in the schools do so out of a firm
    *intellectual belief* that evolution has *greater* scientific support,
    rather than out of any religious belief of their own.  In fact, they
    espouse many different religious (and irreligious) beliefs!
    
    On the other hand, it *definitely appears* that those who want
    creationism taught *are* operating more out of a religious persuasion 
    than a out of an intellectual persuasion.  Moreover, they are (in my
    experience) adamantly opposed to having having evolution taught at all.
    
    I personally would not be opposed to having any *legitimate scientific
    evidence* that opposes evolution be presented as an alternate
    hypothesis and debated purely on scientific terms (without positing a
    Creator).  I doubt that any (or at least many) proponents of
    creationism are as open to the teaching of evolution.
    
>  They are *NOT* interested in a fair and balanced presentation
>of both sides of the debate; they *ARE* interested in their side and their
>side only being presented.  Are you claiming that this is the American
>way?  To have disputed "facts" jammed down the throats of children ...
    
    Collis, this, in my experience, is a very accurate and apt description
    of what *creationists and many conservative Christians* want to do to
    everyone else's children!
    
    
    Nancy

Re: .100 Collis

>What I said was more like, textbooks which ignore the clear (and in many
>people's mind quite convincing) SCIENTIFIC evidence for creationism for
>the reason of establishing a religious belief based on evolution indicate
>a conspiracy.

I have never seen anything from the creation "scientists" that even comes
close to proving their case.  At best they provide nit-picking evidence that
tends to show that our understanding of evolution is incomplete, or that
there is disagreement between scientists over relatively minor details.  Even
if they could prove that the theory of evolution is false, this would not
prove that the biblical creation story is true.

				-- Bob

    re: .97, Collis,
    
>I tend to agree.  However, since what *is* "New Age" is so hard to
>define, you'll forgive me if I think that things that many "New Agers"
>believe in and support are "New Age".
    
    What I'm suggesting is that you oppose whatever you oppose without
    trying to force an inappropriate label on it.
    
>But that doesn't mean that something is not "New Age" now.  You've probably
>heard it many times, but since it is appropriate here, I'll say it.  There
>is nothing new in "New Age".  Therefore, what someone believed before "New
>Age" has no bearing on whether it is now part of the "New Age".  The only
>way to define "New Age" that I know of is to look at what New Agers are
>saying now, writing now, reading now, doing now, etc.
    
    Again, it seems that you put the cart before the horse.  If you oppose
    x and if NA is for x, it might be appropriate to say that you oppose NA
    because they are for x, while you believe x is wrong.  However, what I
    hear said too often is the opposite:  "*Because* those nasty NA'ers
    believe x, x must be wrong."
    
>  >*IF* there is a "push in our culture to New Age" it is in spite of, not
>  >because of, "New Agers."  
>
>You might wish to reconsider this statement.  Are you telling me that
>it is the non-New Agers who are pushing the New Age movement, not the
>New Agers?  I hardly think so.
    
    I am saying that you are defining a lot of things as being NA as though
    NA'ers invented them and then you blame NA for them.  I was quoting
    *your* phrase "push in our culture to New Age" and using *your* definition
    that New Age = evolution and a lot of others things lumped together --
    but it is that definition with which I strongly and vehemently
    disagree!
    
    Given that major disagreement, yes, I am definitely saying that a lot
    of people who, for example, want evolution taught in the schools and
    work for that goal, or who lead workshops in positive self-image, etc.,
    are *not* New Agers.  As long as *you* define that as part of the "push
    in our culture to New Age" then my statement -- that it is in spite of,
    not because of, New Agers, still stands.
    
    Nancy

Re:  56.103

  >What I'm suggesting is that you oppose whatever you oppose without
  >trying to force an inappropriate label on it.
    
I hear what you're saying.  You don't wish me to label something with
an inappropriate label just because I oppose it.  Would you please show
me exactly where I have done this?  
    
  >Again, it seems that you put the cart before the horse.  If you oppose
  >x and if NA is for x, it might be appropriate to say that you oppose NA
  >because they are for x, while you believe x is wrong.  However, what I
  >hear said too often is the opposite:  "*Because* those nasty NA'ers
  >believe x, x must be wrong."

Have I said that?  If so where?

  >I am saying that you are defining a lot of things as being NA as though
  >NA'ers invented them and then you blame NA for them.  

On the contrary, I said explicitly that NA'ers did *NOT* invent them.
I "blame" NA'ers only for selling/proselytizing their doctrines.  I
think "blame" is the wrong word here because that assumes that this is
a negative activity.  Selling/proselytizing a doctrine in and of itself
is not necessarily wrong.  I think some of the doctrines that NA'ers are
selling/proselytizing are right and that some are wrong.  I support
the ones that are right in my eyes and contend against the ones that
are wrong in my eyes.

  >...using *your* definition that New Age = evolution...

This is where part of the problem is.  I never said New Age had
anything to do with evolution.  You introduced evolution in .95
and I have never said a thing to indicate that I see the belief in
evolution as part of the New Age movement (although I do understand
how you could be confused about this since there are several ideas going
on in one note).  To set the record straight, I *do not* see the
belief in evolution as having much (anything?) to do with the New Age 
Movement.

Collis

RE: .104 Collis,

>  >What I'm suggesting is that you oppose whatever you oppose without
>  >trying to force an inappropriate label on it.
>
>I hear what you're saying.  You don't wish me to label something with
>an inappropriate label just because I oppose it.  Would you please show
>me exactly where I have done this?

Yes. I consider the following to be inappropriate labeling:

>Rather, I was thinking of the push in our culture to New Age through 
>the books that are pushed on children on school, the business seminars
>based on New Age philosophies that are becoming more and more common
>in the business world and the many other more subtle ways in which
>those who believe the New Age philosophies try to spread their
>beliefs.

    
>  >Again, it seems that you put the cart before the horse.  If you oppose
>  >x and if NA is for x, it might be appropriate to say that you oppose NA
>  >because they are for x, while you believe x is wrong.  However, what I
>  >hear said too often is the opposite:  "*Because* those nasty NA'ers
>  >believe x, x must be wrong."
>
>Have I said that?  If so where?

In the same quote. Guilt by association.  The school books are bad -- 
not, as far as I can tell, because they are inaccurate or misleading,
but they push us toward New Age thinking, which apparently -- from the
context -- is something bad.  Likewise, the "business seminars" are bad
because they are (by your labeling) "New Age."  


>  >I am saying that you are defining a lot of things as being NA as though
>  >NA'ers invented them and then you blame NA for them.  
>
>On the contrary, I said explicitly that NA'ers did *NOT* invent them.
>I "blame" NA'ers only for selling/proselytizing their doctrines.  I
>think "blame" is the wrong word here because that assumes that this is
>a negative activity. 

Note the phrase "as though" in what I said.  And, when the statements about New
Age stand without further explanation, those statements *do* sound "as though"
the bad things were "invented" by New Agers.  (People who did *not* know of them
before they heard of New Age, would be led to think that NA did come up with
them.)

>  >...using *your* definition that New Age = evolution...
>
>This is where part of the problem is.  I never said New Age had
>anything to do with evolution.  You introduced evolution in .95
>and I have never said a thing to indicate that I see the belief in
>evolution as part of the New Age movement... 
>To set the record straight, I *do not* see the belief in evolution as having
>much (anything?) to do with the New Age Movement.

You got me here, Collis!  *I* made the jump from your "I was thinking of the
push in our culture to New Age through the books that are pushed on children on
school" to evolution vs. creationism as one of the *most common* schoolbook
battlegrounds!  If that was an incorrect conclusion, I apologize -- but now I
wonder what kinds of books you see being "pushed on children" that *are*
connected with New Age???? And how that fits in with the following:

>I think some of the doctrines that NA'ers are
>selling/proselytizing are right and that some are wrong.  I support
>the ones that are right in my eyes and contend against the ones that
>are wrong in my eyes.

Which ones are right in your eyes?  This statement is in strong contrast with
the "pushed on children" statement.

Nancy

    Collis,
    	it was not my intent to ridicule you. I did point out that those
    who offer the Bible as scientific evidence were likely to draw pity or
    ridicule for their efforts. 
    re:.88
    	"There is a great battle going on between those who hold New Age
    beliefs(whatever they are :-)) and those who oppose New Age beliefs
    because they conflict with their own beliefs (whatever they are). I
    think that "proselytizing"(an attempt to convert someone from one
    doctrine or belief to another) goes on all the time in this area."
    Perhaps there is a battle, but it is only being fought on one side. You
    only THINK the New Agers are fighting back. And, speaking of ridicule,
    it is interesting to note that you put a 'smiley face' after your
    'whatever they are' for the NAs, but none for those opposed to NAs, why
    might this be except for ridicule ?
    re:.90
    	"There are many New Agers who are trying to convert. Why? Because
    it affects their lives. It affects their schools. It affects their
    work. It affects their relationships." 
    Only one New Ager of my acquaintance made any attempt to convert me.
    One. And I know nearly as many New Agers as I do devout Christians. Do
    you want to know how many devout Christians have tried to convert me ?
    The number is not a single digit.
    re:.92
    	"... the push in our culture to New Age through the books that are
    pushed on children in school, the business seminars based on New Age
    philosophies that are becoming more and more common in the business
    world and the many other more subtle ways in which those who believe
    the New Age philosophies try to spread their beliefs."
    Just WHO is pushing books on which children in which schools ?  Who
    gave them the authority to do so ?  If these people are so out of step
    with society how did they manage to get and keep such authority in a
    public school system. "THEY" may not cater to your minority concerns
    but it is fairly obvious that the MAJORITY of the people AND the
    elected officials in your city or town are not concerned about your
    issues. If you can show that "New Age Beliefs"(whatever they are) are
    being presented in one or another text - as opposed to the expected
    informative content - then you should point this out as a religious
    conflict. Or you should shut up.
    	"The question is, will we have the Lord Jesus Christ rule our
    hearts and minds? Or our(are?DM) we going to build a "better" world
    primarily by ourselves?"
    Christianity gives one answer. The New Age movement, despite the
    rhetoric, gives an entirely different answer."
    Perhaps if you could show how the answer you attribute to "the New Age
    movement" is a religious disagreement rather than an a-religious
    default you could generate some concern. Most of those who want to
    build a better world - with or without the rule of Christ - are either
    non-religious, nominal Christians, or 'liberal' Christians. Some of
    them are New Agers, most not. If you are not intent on helping to build
    a better world - with the rule of Christ, if you wish, or without -
    then maybe you should rethink the negative thrust of your philosophy.
    re:.97
    	"However, many of those who want evolution taught *also* want
    creationism *not* taught - despite the fact that there is *a lot* of
    (scientific) evidence for creationism."
    I am unaware of any scientific evidence that suggests that creationism
    has any validity. I read Scientific American, Natural History, The
    Smithsonian, and a number of other publications which would generally
    be expected to contain some reference to nearly any reasonable
    scholarship in the area. They regularly report on flaws in the theory
    of evolution and sometimes note the publication of creationist
    propaganda, but never give space to "creation science". Either this is
    a broad-based plot or "creation science" has no scientific backing. I
    believe the latter. 
    
    NEW STUFF re:.100
    	"What I said was more like, textbooks which ignore the clear (and
    in many people's mind quite convincing) SCIENTIFIC evidence for
    creationism for the reason of establishing a religious belief based on
    evolution indicate a conspiracy."
    WHAT EVIDENCE ?  Give us a clue. Anything.Religious belief BASED ON
    EVOLUTION ?  Collis, this is pathetically ludicrous and beyond casual
    paranoia. My opinion, of course. Care to document any of it?
    	"To have disputed "facts" jammed down the throats of children so
    that their religious orientation will shift away from a Judeo-Christian
    concept of God?"
    You may "dispute" the facts all you want. We will at least listen if
    you will be so good as to provide a shred or two of evidence. Who is
    doing the "jamming" ?  Some New Age religious bigot ?  Care to bet that
    the teacher that you so revile attends a mainstream Chritian church ?
    What concept of God and what religious orientation are they being
    shifted toward if they are being shifted AWAY from a Judeo-Christian
    concept ?  Details, please. Motives, please. And, what church do the
    offenders attend ?
    
    Collis,
    	now I've responded to your points. I've presented at least as many
    facts as you have; none. This is perhaps the longest reply I've ever
    entered and it is solely to let you know that YOU have presented NO
    facts to support your wild allegations and that I CAN do better if you
    insist. Now it is your turn to present some facts to support your
    accusations or to admit that you erred in venting your paranoia and
    opinion as facts. OK?
    
    	Dave

Re:  56.106

Dave,

  >it was not my intent to ridicule you. 

Glad to hear it.  Perhaps I should have said it was your intent to
ridicule what I was saying.  Is this accurate (or did you just have
no intent to ridicule at all)?  In general, you credit me with saying
things I have not said, or exaggerate what I have said to the extent
that it totally misses what I actually said, that it is difficult to
really discuss the issues.  But maybe you don't really want to deal
with the issues.  That's certainly what I often think when I read your
replies.  :-(  But you apparently have fun writing your replies.  :-)

  >it is interesting to note that you put a 'smiley face' after your
  >'whatever they are' for the NAs, but none for those opposed to NAs, why
  >might this be except for ridicule ?

That's because NA'ers often have no definition for themselves.  Those
who generally oppose New Age thinking, on the other hand, often do
have a definition of themselves.  Sorry this was not clear to you; it
was very clear in my mind when I wrote it.

  >Just WHO is pushing books on which children in which schools ?  

The New Age Movement itself is very hard to define, as we've all seemed
to agree.  The question should not be "who" is pushing books, but
rather what "ideas" are pushing books that are supported (generally)
by the New Age Movement.  It is the philosophy of the New Age Movement
(which has captured many people's imaginations) which results in
these things happening.

  >If these people are so out of step with society how did they manage to 
  >get and keep such authority in a public school system. 

I did not say NA'ers were out of step with society.  In fact, I said
more like the opposite which was that there was a grassroots effort
in the New Age Movement.  A significant part of society is into New
Age.  A significant part is opposed.  The majority is apathetic.

  >...it is fairly obvious that the MAJORITY of the people AND the
  >elected officials in your city or town are not concerned about your
  >issues. 

Some are, some aren't.

  >If you can show that "New Age Beliefs"(whatever they are) are
  >being presented in one or another text - as opposed to the expected
  >informative content - then you should point this out as a religious
  >conflict. Or you should shut up.

Well, you can hardly expect me to shut up in America where I have a
right to express myself.  :-)

I think that perhaps we view "religion" differently.  It is *impossible*,
in my mind, not to have "religious" overtones to many issues.  This is
because the deletion of religious references *is* a religious statement.
So, in my mind, the true question is not, "Are there religious overtones?"
The question is "What are the religious overtones?"  Specifically, those
materials which encourage (or force) children to think in terms of
relativistic morality; those materials which encourage or force children
to apply value to life based on quality or life or capabilities which
are becoming more and more widespread in schools are, in my understanding,
supported in general by those who support New Age philosophies.  And since
"New Age" is defined by the beliefs of actions of the "New Agers", I
look at this as part of the New Age Movement.

But I am not yelling (and never have yelled) conspiracy.

  >Most of those who want to build a better world - with or without the rule 
  >of Christ - are either non-religious, nominal Christians, or 'liberal' 
  >Christians. 

In my opinion, this is just your bias showing through.  The facts are
that (religiously) active, conservative Christians are *very* concerned
with building a better world.  I have read surveys that show this in
the past.  For example, voting records indicate Christians are more
likely to vote than non-Christians.  Etc., etc.

  >...maybe you should rethink the negative thrust of your philosophy.

I was unaware that my philosophy was centered in a negative thrust.
Perhaps what you call a negative (not having New Age influence) is
what I call a positive (having a God-centered influence)?

  >Either this is a broad-based plot or "creation science" has no scientific 
  >backing.  I believe the latter. 

I will pass, for now, on a more detailed discussion of this.  I'll simply
say that there is considerable bias amongst scientists (who to a large
extent are not believers in God) against viewing creationism favorably and 
that this is reflected in what is written.  The reason for this is obvious -
they have a priori written off creationism as a possible explanation.  And
the reason for that is obvious is well - If God exists, then they are
likely to be personally accountable to Him and they do not wish such
accountability.  No, you need to look much more closely at the evidence
than at the scientists - and read books written on the subject from a
Christian perspective as well.  There is plenty of (scientific) evidence 
to turn over in your mind there.

  >...it is solely to let you know that YOU have presented NO facts to 
  >support your wild allegations

You are right that neither of us have presented anything useful in the
way of facts.  I'm willing to discuss many, many topics in a (relatively) 
calm manner.  At this point, I don't particularly wish to spend the time
discussing this one.  Is that o.k.?   I can recommend several books for
you to read, if you like.

  >Now it is your turn to present some facts to support your accusations 
  >or to admit that you erred in venting your paranoia and opinion as facts.

But Dave, I submitted as many facts as you did (according to you).  Should
not you also admit that you erred in venting your paranoia and opinion as
facts?  :-)

I didn't think you would.  :-)

Collis

    I find it utterly extraordinary that a string on the "Attributes of
    Satan" has become a discussion of New Age beliefs and reputed tactics.  
    
    I find the original string topic repugnant and I deplore the linkage
    with New Age ideas.  
    
    DR

Re: .109 DR

Yes, we've gotten way off the subject.  I'd like to respond to some of the
things Collis said in .107, though, so I'm going to reply to 56.107 in
note 37, the New Age note.

				-- Bob

    re .107
    Collis,
    	you did get one thing right in your essay: it WAS my intent to
    ridicule at least some of what you were saying. As for the rest, I
    provided your comments immediatly before my responses and included the
    reply number so that anyone could check those quotations for accuracy.
    You may want to shrug my comments off as being replies to something you
    never said, but you'd better start deleting your notes before you do.
    	This is not France, this is the United States. Here it is the
    responsibility of the accuser to prove the accusation true, not the
    defender to prove the accusation false. You are the accuser and you
    have provided no evidence to prove your case either against the New
    Agers or against the scientists or against the teachers/school
    administrators or against the book publishers. You have accused all of
    these people with being in an anti-Christian plot and not even
    attempted to prove your accusations. You used the term conspiracy then
    denied using it. You say they are all against you then suggest that it
    is I who am paranoid.
    	Collis, you are not making a lot of sense. However, since you
    offered, please do provide a bibliography to support your claims - for
    "creation science" or for this vast anti-Christian plot your special
    vision has delineated for you.

    Two things: 
    
    #1: What happened to 56.108 ???
    
    #2: could some skillful soul please transfer as much of this New Age
    diversion as possible to the New Age string ?  It would make more sense
    there.
    
    	Dave

    Lets see now, conspire's root meaning is to breathe together.
    
    on a more serious note Satan is doubtless a consumate shape shifter. He
    sports horns and a tail only on halloween! :^)
    
    I started to write a movie script about satan once. It was about a
    couple of bible basher types who get a little too exuberant after a
    particularly satisfying service and challenge satan to show up. He does
    and promptly abducts them. They pray for Jesus to rescue them so satan
    vanishes and "jesus" shows up. They are very happy until they notice
    its the same being! Satan then reverts to his preferred costume and
    appearance, which happens to be a suit and tie! He proceeds to put on a
    show for them, alternately flattering, informing and threatening until
    all but one ask to join his side! Then he tells them everyone in their
    church will think they've been raptured and dumps them into shark
    infested waters. Miraculously the one who didn't "sign up with ole
    splitfoot is rescued by a fishing boat. No body believes her story as
    to how she got there so she ends up committed as insane. She is brought
    in to be interviewed by a psychiatrist, who looks just like Satan?
    
    The point of it was to show that satan doesn;t want people to know he
    exists. If thaey believe in his existence, he holds them up to
    ridicule. His main weapon is doubt.
    
    john

    What a *great* story john!  I would love to see you write it all out!
    
    Karen

    Re:  .113
    
    On the other hand, the dark night of the soul is considered a necessary
    journey on the road to at-one-ment, and, 'though I haven't experienced
    it yet, it is said to be nothing if not filled with doubt.
    
    Remember also that Jesus was driven into the wilderness by the Holy
    Spirit TO BE TEMPTED BY SATAN (Matthew, I believe).  Could it be that
    one is in cahoots with the other?
    
    To counter myself, I remember the story of the Rabbi who was taunted by
    one of his congregation.  The fellow said he'd walked long on the path
    of life and never met the devil.  
    
    "That's because you're going his way!" said the Rabbi.
    
    DR

    One factor i didn't see mentioned it a hasty reading of this file is
    the the effect of Satan. He is described as coming down to you, "having
    great wrath" and "seeking whom he may devour". Few accidents just
    happen IMHO.
    
    This brings up another puzzle. Why then are good people, even people
    who ask for God's protection killed? I believe the bible offers ample
    explanation.
    
    john 

    Satan is you when you're tired of putting up with religious drek.

    In case anyone missed the most recent issue of the Weekly World News,
    it turns out that Satan's face was found in Hurricane Andrew.  It must
    be true, because it was reported in the Weekly World News.
    
    -- Mike

    Satan is god's creation...

    
	[ I, like everyone else has been bothered by the thought of the
	[ Devil, Satan, the evil serpent, etc..  It has been a heavy burden
	[ on my mind ever since I can remember; due to that fact, I have
	[ done some research in order to find out the Truth behind it,
	[ and I'm posting the results of my work here in hope that someone
	[ may be helped by it and may be relieved of that heavy cloud and
	[ fear that hangs over all humanity.  That is my one and only purpose
	[ in posting this, and it is *not* my intention to antagonize anyone.
	[ I respect whatever you may believe, and I hope you will extend me 
	[ the same courtesy.  As always, you may accept or reject as your 
	[ conscience dictates.  The following excerpts are from several
	[ sources, too many to mention, interpolated with some commentaries 
	[ of my own.

	There is no entity, physical or non-physical, called The Devil; what
	people call The Devil is nothing but a mis-conception, a superstition, 
	mis-interpretation of the ancient scriptures on the part of the 
	Christian theologians.  There is no Devil, no Evil, outside of mankind 
	to produce a Devil.  Evil is a necessity in, and one of the supporters 
	of the manifested universe.  It is a necessity for progress and 
	evolution, as night is necessary for the production of Day, and Death
	is for that of Life -that man may live for ever.  Satan represents 
	metaphysically simply the "reverse or the polar opposite of everything 
	in nature".

	It was left with the early and ignorant Christian fathers to degrade 
	the philosophical and highly scientific idea of this emblem(The Dragon)
 	into the absurd superstition called the "Devil".  They took it from 
	the later Zoroastrians, who saw devils or the Evil in the Hindu Devas, 
	and the word Evil thus became by a double transmutation D'Evil in every
	tongue (Diabolos, Diable, Diablo, Diavolo).  

	The Serpent became the type and symbol of evil, and of the Devil, only 
	during the middle ages. In the Bible, in the book of Job, the devil is 
	called the "Son of God", but the church called  him Darkness.  

	Jesus accepted the serpent as a synonym of Wisdom, and this formed part
 	of his teaching: "Be ye wise as serpents", he said. "In the beginning, 
	before Mother became Father-Mother, the fiery Dragon moved in the 
	infinitudes alone".  Before our globe became egg-shaped (and the 
	Universe also), "a long trail of Cosmic dust (or fire mist) moved and 
	writhed like a serpent in Space."  

	For the ancients, the snake was the symbol for wisdom and intellect.  
	Light and darkness are identical in themselves,  being only divisible 
	in the human mind.   Light is matter, and Darkness is pure spirit.  
	Darkness adopted Illumination in order to make itself visible. In the 
	book of Genesis, Light is created out of Darkness.

	The "Spirit of God moving on Chaos" was symbolized by every nation in 
	the shape of a fiery serpent breathing fire and light upon the 
	primordial waters until it had incubated cosmic matter and made it 
	assume the annular shape of a serpent with its tail in its mouth -which
 	symbolizes not only Eternity and Infinitude, but also the globular 
	shape of all the bodies formed within the Universe from that fiery mist.

	The story about the Garden of Eden where the snake induces Eve to eat 
	of the apple is nothing but an allegory to symbolize the giving of the 
	intellect to the mindless humanity of that time, it was a symbology to 
	express the opening of the intellectual faculties, the withdrawal of 
	the veil of ignorance that closed the perceptions of the Angelic Man,
	made in the image of the "Boneless" gods, and the opening of his 
	consciousness to his real nature; thus showing the bright Angel 
	(Lucifer) in the light of a giver of Immortality, and as the 
	"Enlightener". 

	Stories like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden are symbologies and 
	should not be interpreted literally.  The Bible is filled with many 
	such stories, which, once you have been given the key to their true 
	meaning, will reveal a wealth of information about early mankind Races.

	That is the real reason why so many diverse religions interpret the 
	Bible in so many different ways; because they try to interpret it 
	literally, and so they fail in obtaining the true meaning of the 
	stories.  If it were not for this, all religions would be one and the 
	same, which in reality they are, since they all spring from the same 
	source.

	May Harmony, Peace, Love and Understanding be with you all.

			Juan

    RE: .37
    
    Whoa!!! Lots of stuff in your reply, and I admit that I didn't follow
    some. I'm interested, though, on the idea that evil is needed, just
    like death....can you explain?
    
    Marc H.

Carried over from 624.

Actually, the question of the gender of Satan is one to which I haven't given
much thought.

There are plenty of instances in the Bible where a woman is either the
instigator or a conspirator of wrong doing.

Still, Satan is traditionally portrayed as male.

Most violent crimes are committed by men.  Certainly, most rapes are
committed by men.  War is traditionally waged by men.

Richard

    
    
	RE: .121
    
    	Marc,
    
	Evil is needed in the sense that it cannot exist without "good".
	They're opposites sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without
	the other, and they are both needed in order for us to grow and make 
	progress.  We live in a dualistic universe where everything is in 
	pairs, good and evil, life and death, light and darkness, positive 
	and negative, male and female, just to name a few.  

	These are relative terms; what is good for one may be bad for another, 
	what was good for us yesterday may be bad for us tomorrow, it all 
	depends on our stage of developement.  We learn as much, if not more, 
	from exposure to evil as we do from exposure to good.  They are great 
	teachers, for we make mistakes and we learn our lessons from them.  

				Juan		

    Re: .123
    
    Thanks Juan.
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    
    I seem to be in a C.S. Lewis mode. 8-)
    
    
    C.S. Lewis talking about Dualism (which I believe is what Juan is
    talking about), in Mere Christianity.
    
    "If Dualism is true, then the Bad Power must be a being who likes
    badness for its own sake.  But in reality we have no experience of
    anyone liking badness just because it is bad.  The nearest we can get
    to it is in cruelty.  But in real life people are cruel for one of two
    reasons - either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a
    sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to
    them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out it -
    money, or power, or safety.  But pleasure, money, power, and safety are
    all, as far as they go, good things.  The badness consists in pursuing
    them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much.  I don't
    mean, of course, that the people who do this aren't desperately wicked. 
    I do mean the wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the
    pursuit of some good in the wrong way.  You can be good for the mrere
    sake of goodness: you can't be bad for the mere sake of badness.  You
    can do a kind action when you're not feeling kind and when it gives you
    no pleasure, simply because kindness is right; but no one ever did a
    cruel action simply because cruelty is wrong - only because curelty was
    pleasant or useful to him.  In other words badness can't succeed even
    in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good.  Goodness is,
    so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.  And there must
    be something good first before it can be spoiled.  We called Sadism a
    sexual perversion; but you must first have the idea of a normal
    sexuality before you can talk of it being perverted; and you can see
    which is the perversion, because you can explain the perverted from the
    normal, and can't explain the normal from the perverted.  It follows
    that the Bad Power, who is supposed to be on an equal footing with the
    Good Power, and to love badness in the same way as the good one loves
    goodness, is a mere bogey.  In order to be bad he must have good things
    to want and then to pursue inthe wrong way: he must have impulses which
    were originally good in order to be able to pervert them.  But if he is
    bad he can't supply himself either with good things to desire or with
    good impulses to pervert.  He must be getting both from the Good Power. 
    And if so, then he is not independent.  He is part of the Good Power's
    world: he was made either by the Good Power or by some power above them
    both.
    	Put it more simply still.  To be bad, he must exist and have
    intelligence and will.  But existence, intelligence, and will are in
    themselves good.  Therefore he must be getting them from the Good
    Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.  And
    do you now being to see why Christianity has always said that the devel
    is a fallen angel?  That isn't a mere story for the children.  It's a
    real recognition of the fact that eveil is a parasite, not an original
    thing.  The power which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by
    goodness.  All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad
    are in themselves good things - resolution, cleverness, good looks,
    existence itself.  That's why Dualism, in a strict sense, won't work."