NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/satanism/2701

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 12.0 KB | 319 lines

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!eshin
From: [e-mail] (Eshin-Fun)
Subject: Re: prophesies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:33:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Lines: 307

>>[e-mail] (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
: [e-mail] (Eshin-Fun) writes:
: >:>[e-mail] (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
: >:>: [e-mail] (Eshin-Fun) writes:
: >
: >:
: >:> Christianity seems to have been spawned out of anger.
: >:> "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother and wife and
: >:> children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be
: >:> my disciple" [Luke 13,v.26]
: >:
[commentary deleted for the sake of brevity]

:
: I tried to look up the verse to see what the context was, but your
: reference is wrong.  Where is this verse, really?

I apologize. I wrote [Luke 13,v26] it should have been [Luke 14,v26].


>>>: >>>: Actually what's interesting about Jesus isn't his homosexuality, it's
: >: his =asexuality=.  It seems to me like he personally had no interest in
: >: sex whatsoever.<<
: >
: > Ohhh? Then what about:
: >
: > "For the time past of >our< life may suffice us to have wrought the will of
: > the Gentiles, when >we< walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine,
: > revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:"
: > [1 Peter,4 v.3]
:
: He doesn't say "we", he says "you".  "Living as =you= have done in
: shameless, insolent wantonness, in lustful desires ..."  (at least that's
: how two different translations of mine state it).<<

In the KJ translation it states:
 [1Peter,4 v 1]
 "Forasmuch then as Christ  etc...
[1Peter,4 v2]
That he no longer should live the rest of >his< time in the flesh to the
lusts of men, but to the will of God.
[1Peter,4v3]
For the time past of >our< life etc..(just like the quote above.)

I do not pretend to be discussing biblical disperages. I am also using a
common translation that for years was the basis of argument. If we look at
this passage (only as an example) we see that my point is that Christian
argument is based either on "conjecture" or the litteral word, then
interpreted.
I can understand the ultimate point the writers perhaps intended, but I
cannot idolitrize these writings above any other that other cultures have
had as absolute or even better.
Considering "conjecture" the deliberate weak acusations of your messiah
being gay is as valid to prove that he was not. In fact, that he catered
only to male apostles might support my conjecture more since this carpenter
did not clearly state that he was asexual or anything else relative to his
personal convictions on that subject. In fact he never wrote anything at
all!
It's all conjecture and hearsay from somebody else, and a translation of a
translation.

What is sorely missing with many a book thumper is the preconceived
knowledge of that time and the conditions that were existant at that time
which though there are many similarities it was not U.S. in the 20th
century.
Further, the ideas that seem to permiate in the NT are borrowed from the
then popular Neo-Platonic school of Alexandria (read Plotinus) and a host of
popular situations that were not indicative of Jerusalem at that time.


:
: > Why was John the "divine"? ;-) Come, come now. If you are an idolatrer of
: > books, fine! But don't expect everyone else to be as well.
:
: Do I idolize books?<<

No you perhaps Idolatrize a particular book called the New Testament when
you base your beliefs and convictions on it.

>: > What does this mean?? Wow! ......really. Words, are words. If there is no
: > one there to speak them then anyone can make them become whatever they want.
:
: For those of you who didn't understand, he just said the earth is a moebius
: strip.<<

If you mean a mobius strip I can understand that but what is "moebius"?
However, do >you< understand what I mean by that mobius analogy?

:
: Actually, you have a good point. It's much easier to twist a person's
: words when they're not around to explain themselves.  Unfortuantely this
: applies to everyone in the Bible.  (Well, unless you believe the New Age
: trace mediums!)

Yeahhh!! perhaps you do after all. I have always questioned mediumship.
I have seen fakes, and real ones. And even when faced with that reality I
have still questioned it in my mind. This New Age crap, does not fit the
bill to the authentic trance mediums of the times before.New Age.



:
: > Prometheus >is< a good example of preserverance but not the austerity of the
: > "shakers" which in the end result in nihilsm.
: > The "Shakers" >were< Christians.
:
: Who are the shakers, and how do they fit into all this?  (You're going to
: make me go to the library to read up on some obscure sect, aren't you).

I am surprised. The Shakers, were a very well known Christian community. All
the men lived in on house. The women lived in another. The danced and prayed
to your messiah and read the bible. In the end their fame was more for the
furnature they built than their philosophy. It's an integral part of
"Americana". Maybe you >should< look them up. It won't hurt.


:
: > So what is their posterity, a chair?

Thus the obvious pun.

:
: >>>: You need to become free to be yourself.  I definitely agree with you
: >: there.<<
: >
: > Good! But to love life you have to accept it as it is. You cannot shame the
: > creations of what you worship by perverting it to an imaginative ideology
: > that contradicts "nature" itself.
: >
: > You do not "need" a book to tell you the wonders of the universe.
:
: No, but the overwhelming evidence (i.e. poverty, racism, $$ corruption,
: blah blah blah) is that people in this world have yet to grasp the
: wonders of the universe.


Unfortunately these "perversions" are because of "books". But you'd be
surprised how many people there are out there that do not use a book to
wonder awestruck at the wonders of the universe.

No one died and left you as the Messiah for you to be worried about the
world's population. If you truly want to accomplish an influence, then mind
your own business and become an example by being the best of what you can be
and enjoy it. The natural flaws, (envy, greed, etc) of humanity will find
themselves observing your success and in their own envy "you may have moved
them" without ever trying to.

:
: Of course, you are the sole exception...
:

Come on...you don't realy believe that. I am quite sure, that much to your
chagrin there's many people who believe as I have stated. I have met some.
And in the midst of dissapointment they were a greater inspiration than any
book could have been.

: > You cannot expect to live this life preoccupied by the next
:
: You can if you believe what you do now affects the next.  (Whether you
: believe in an afterlife doesn't have anything to do with whether there
: =is= one, but can definitely affect the way you live).

Regardless, your first reality is to learn how to live in the present.
Regardless whether there is a "future" life or not it is all hinged on the
"now"
The future is nothing more than the consequences of its past.
Which is your present. Change the present and that morbid future that you
may opportune shall cease to exist. Even when there is an inevitable
destinity you can still change its impact...and still survive and be
victorious!

So, what difference does it make whether there is after life or not? It's
juxtaposed on what you do in the "now" anyway.



:
: > or the colorful imaginative past.
:
: Not by the past, but the meaning of, the lessons to be learned from the
: past.

To dwell on the past is to delude yourself to memories. This is a Hang up.
Progress cannot harbour preoccupation of the past. Though it can reflect or
learn from it by its nature it must go forward and not be afraid of
stumbling or imperfections in a imperfect world.

Perfection is only the virtue of conclusion. When one cannot do anything
more to improve, or evolve what you have undertaken. This is perfection for
the individual even if some else comes along and develops what you could not
to a greater degree. For that individual that ended its efforts it is
perfected.

:
: > God, if God exists in its perfection needs nothing and
: > desires nothing.
:
: Quite true.  That's how love always is.  Nobody is going to love you
: until you don't need their love anymore.  Perhaps this is why we have
: no excuse for loving God.

To "love" is very simple. For love is sufficient unto itself. The problem is
the expectations that people put on love.

When you "give" it is sort of like a "sacrifice". In the art of "giving" one
should never expect anything in return. For if you hope to extract a
response then you are no longer giving but rather bartering. If you really
love and you are selfless and capable of creating that "rapport" it may move
the object of your admiration to respond but that is not a guarantee.

Being yourself is all that you can hope for. But finding out what you are is
another story.


: > God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga
: > wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God
: > mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga God mugga wugga

I did not write this.

:
: If these ramblings have a point, it flew right by me.
:
Me too.

: > Perhaps it is best understood by the philosophical statement: "I know,
: > therefore I AM."
:
: I know not, therefore, I am not...?
:

Only if you preoccupy yourself with what you're not. But, to know not you
have to have a point of reference to which you identify that you're not,
therefore you are thinking, therefore you know something, thus you are.


: > >>:> If we were to meet, I could open doors that you never dreamt
: >:> existed! And in the end you'll look back only to see that the prophets
: >:> and messiahs were no more than a figment no less than a pillar of salt
: >:> could define.  ;-)
: >:
: >: Hmmm... I'm curious what this could be about!  (Don't come back and
: >: tell us about any bad trips!!)<<
: >
: > Are you really curious?
:
: Yes, I'm really curious!
:
: > Trust me ;-),
:
: I don't trust you.

Well, first you would have to trust in yourself, so that you could trust me.
If you can get over that hurdle, then .........

we meet.

In life, however, we never really get to trust anything and anybody
completely. Only with time do we ever get close to that idea of "trust" but
in order to get that far you have to take that chance.


:
: Oh, Eshin-Fun, you make it sound as if =you= know =the= secret of life,
: the universe, and everything.  You think you've got the whole thing
: figured out...

Perhaps I do, then again perhaps I don't. But what makes you so sure I
don't? So long as we are in mortal frame no one can ever really boast of the
perfection of knowing all, less they die. The fun is in finding out.

:
: I will hear what you have to say... but I make no promise to follow you.
: Call me insincere, but you are not God!

I never claimed to be a God. But aside from omniscience, and omnipotence,
what is the meaning of God? Power? if so I certainly can boast that I am a
power. Not absolute. But then again, nothing in nature is ever absolute. The
only consistency in the universe IS change. And so long as one can be able
to change, one not only suvives, but becomes enhanced with every effrevescent
metamorphisis.

To attempt to become absolute is a limitation that surely by the nature of
change would destroy me, as I would not be able to "grow" and therefore
prevent me of having  "More". And like fire I would be ill fated to consume
myself. No. I enjoy my imperfection and the challenge to educate it through
knowledge and wisdom which I have to learn to experience and deduce.


: BTW You're very poetic.

thankyou. You move me to be so.

: >
: > "To believe is not to know"
: >
: > Maybe there's hope for you afterall Wayne.
:
: Hope? Heaven forbid! Not hope!!
:
: Maybe there's hope for you too...

Of course there is! I never doubted that. As you should learn there is hope
for you too.

Eshin-Fun