HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: legesse@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Daniel Legesse)
Subject: Re: The Bible - why oh why?
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:22:29 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


I wouldn't go as far as all that.  Science and philosophy are equally
based upon air.  NO? Well, let's take physics.  Don't physicists think
that it is a bit peculiar that, according to the laws of physics,
bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly?  And the same is true for planes,
ponder this the next time you're at 25,000 feet.  Futhermore,
philosophers have been arguing over the existence of God more than
theologians (who, by the way, have never had to, which is why their
theologians and not philosophers).  "Cogito, sum ergo," was uttered by
a Christian who used philosophy (and therefore, logic and reason) to
prove the existence of God. (By the way, in case you're wondering, the
word order of the above quote makes no difference in the translation.
Descartes erred in his choice of preferred word order.  Please don't
hold that against him.)  So, maybe what jsalter is saying is simply
exchange one crutch for another.  But, there's hope for HIM too.
From: jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joshua salter)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Philosophy... Reason...
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:13:30 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


	Perhaps I have not been reading this newsgroup long enough to obtain a
servicable image of what exactly Satanism is. My concept is predominantly 
influenced by somewhat credible media, (i.e. non-biased), but we may not be
talking abou the same thing. Please inform me as to the nature of what is the
basis of this group, since I am told that I am mistaken as to it's definition.

								-jsalter

				"Cogito, Ergo Sum."
				<I think, therefore I am.> - Descartes

PS Circular reasoning is the widely accepted terminology for an argument that
justifies itself. Example: I belive in God who says I'm always right so he
must exist, don't argue.

PPS I am in Bloomington, not Indy. That is where the major branch of I.U. is
stationed.
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: You're all missing the point...
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:47:28 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Jul31.062458.29016@panix.com>, rdr@panix.com (Reuben Radding) writes:
> In <Bs873K.M8r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> joshua salter <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> 
> 
>>	Be rational. Believing in things is not going to help you any more than
>>you would be helped otherwise. If you need answers to such questions as: where
>>did the universe come from, & what happens after I die; turn to philosophy, 
>>don't take the easy (mentally) way out and subscribe to a religion (or cult, 
>>it makes no difference to me what they call it). And using circular reasoning
>>to justify your beliefs to justify your actions is rather idiotic and self-
>>demeaning. If you cannot get a life (I can't), at least get a mind. And that
>>goes for both of you! (Fundies and Satanists).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satanism IS a philosophy you presumptuous dunce.
> 
> I could go point by point with your favorite philosophy and
> give you the Satanic viewpoint any day--IF you convince me
> you're worth my time.
> 
> Assuming philosophy is what you study there in Indy, maybe you can explain
> "circular reasoning" to the rest of us.
> 
> --thanx for the tip,
> 
> -R
>  
> -- 
> ================================================================
> |  Reuben Radding         rdr@panix.com       cmcl2!panix!rdr  |
> |==============================================================|
> | ******************* Marrou / Lord in 1992 ****************** | 


You use more circular reasoning then anyone that I have ever encountered.

Have fun chasing your little forked tail!

In Him,
Evan

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: ben@NeoSoft.com (Ben Ettinger)
Subject: Re: Sin to Heaven?  NO.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:50:47 GMT

> This conversation (or arguement) started when someone said, "Why not live a
> life of sin and then tell God that you're sorry from your death bed."  The
> person who wrote this shall be labelled "A", the first responder is "B", and
> I will be called "C".  "D" is Mr. Rich's response.  ANY ADDITIONAL WRITING
> THAT IS MINE FROM THIS ARTICLE ONLY WILL BE IN CAPS.
  (snip snip)
 
> IT'S STILL A LIFE OF SIN AND DEATH BECAUSE YOU LACK RIGHTEOUSNESS GIVEN TO
> YOU BY GOD THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON, JESUS CHRIST.
  (snip snip snip)
 
Excuse me for interrupting in a potentially interesting flame war, but I had
understood the purpose of this newsgroup was for satanists to discuss whatever,
or was generally intended for such people to discuss thier ideas, and NOT be
assaulted by a horde of Christians for it. 
Pardon me if I'm wrong, and please don't flame me (if you have that urge, do
it e-mail, please), but if the purpose of this newsgroup was the latter,
shoudn't it be called alt.christianity.eradicate.satanism?

your curious atheist,
ben.
---
("I'm very bored and have just    "Gee, let's get some really dangerous )
(gotten paid for my lackluster    drugs and get high to have a good     )
(teen job!"                       time!"                                )
(-Two Young Teen Cats      /--------------------------------------------)
(-------------------------<       "More than just funny animals" -Albedo)
("Christianity is Stupid"  \---------------------+----------------------)
(-Reverend Estus Pirkle                          ! <> ben@taronga.com <>)

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: wheeler@Xerox.com (Molly Wheeler)
Subject: Re: Sin to Heaven?  NO.
Reply-To: wheeler@Xerox.com (Molly Wheeler)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:25:49 GMT

In the article where everyone started arguing about the
comment, "Why not live a life..."

I made the comment about knowing from personal experience.
I also wrote back stating that I didn't mean to start an 
argument, rather just get a closer insight on a comment
and a style of living that I was curious about.

No one who decided to elaborate on my first comment said 
anything on my second. I agree with the person that said 
that this was suppose to be a group where you could discuss
what you wanted to discuss wiothout being flamed. My intention
wasn't to "flame" anyone, rather just get into a more intense
conversation. This is becoming repetitive B.S.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?

*MO* 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rdr@panix.com (Reuben Radding)
Subject: Re: oh, my.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:14:08 GMT
Organization: Disorganization Datorganization

In <14n9phINNirs@network.ucsd.edu> valerie@ucsd.edu (Valerie Polichar) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.101623.5676@iscsvax.uni.edu>, marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes: 
>> "They say that God is oh so tasteless,
>>         but they've never tasted Him.
>>  Taste and see that the Lord is good,
>>         taste and see, He's so good for you."
>>                                 --- Newsboys

>Oral sex with God?

>Holy Condoms, Batman!

"OOey gooey rich and chewy inside,
light and flakey tender cakey outside. . .

 
-- 
================================================================
|  Reuben Radding         rdr@panix.com       cmcl2!panix!rdr  |
|==============================================================|
| ******************* Marrou / Lord in 1992 ****************** | 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rdr@panix.com (Reuben Radding)
Subject: Church Of Satan
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:32:06 GMT
Organization: Disorganization Datorganization


Someone claimed recently in this newsgroup that the Church Of Sat,
founded by Anton LaVey, dissolved after Michael Aquino left the COS
to form the Temple Of Set. This is absolutely untrue.

The Church Of Satan was happy to see Mr. Aquino go, as his philosophy
was clearly departing from ours.

Since then we have *grown* in membership, and may still be contacted at:

PO BOX 210082
San Francisco, CA. 94121

 Reuben Radding
 Agent
 Church Of Satan

-- 
================================================================
|  Reuben Radding         rdr@panix.com       cmcl2!panix!rdr  |
|==============================================================|
| ******************* Marrou / Lord in 1992 ****************** |
From: pvittal@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: vampires(satanists)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:35:22 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

hi
is there any relation between vampires and satanists?
just curious!
ray
From: ricegm@ecf.toronto.edu (George Matthew Rice)
Subject: Re: Lost Books of the Bible
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:30:43 GMT

Actually does anyone have shitty excerpts of god's or other people's
doings.

For example in Kings II (chap.2 , II think) One of his prophets is
called up to heaven in a flaming chariot so Elijah (unsure) takes over.
On his way back to town some children start making fun of him and 
god sends a she-bear which kills 22(i believe) of them.a
 
Or in the Sodom & Gammorah tales where Lot accepts 2 strangers as guests
into his house. When the town comes knocking to string them up for 
something he decides to try and protect them. Even going so far as to offer
his two young daughters to them for their pleasures.

Now I don't know about you but this is kind of extreme to me.
I was waylaid by a bible thumper the other day and he explained it
this way.
In the first example god was trying to tell everybody that prophets
are to be respected so he had to punish the children (now I don't
believe that Mohhamed was respected let alone be recognized).
The second example was explained that in the old days a person was honour 
bound to protect anyone that entered his househould (I guess children
don't count).

So I told him that his excuses were bull shit and anyone that behaved that
way was a complete asshole. Glad to get that off my chest.
This in no way means that I am pro-satanism. I just think that there
are alternatives to both.

I also like what someone put as a response to some thumpers drivel.
'If god is all-powerful then can he make a cock so big that even
	he cannot suck it?'

Make me wonder.

Matthew

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Sin to Heaven?  NO.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:58:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.224215.5691@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>This conversation (or arguement) started when someone said, "Why not live a
>life of sin and then tell God that you're sorry from your death bed."  The
[bla bla bla]

[...]
>D  OK, which one.   The Koran, Old Testament, New Testament, Dianetics,
>D  what makes yours so special?  And don't give me that "One True God" bullshit.
>D  Unless you can back it up with tangible proof, I don't want to hear it.
> 
>THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS OF THE BIBLE ARE GOD INSPIRED.
>
>THE KORAN WAS TOLD BY A MAN WHO COULD NOT WRITE, SO HE HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE
>ELSE WRITE IT DOWN FOR HIM.  MANY THINGS CONFLICT WITH THE BIBLE AND IT HAS
>BEEN SAID THAT THE MAN WHO WROTE THE KORAN ON PAPER WAS A DRUNKARD.

So Islamic people are going to your hell for not believing in your god?

>DIANETICS IS THE BOOK OF INSTRUCTION FOR SCIENTOLOGY WHICH HAS GONE OUT AND
>ATTACKED PEOPLE THAT HAVE LEFT THEIR "RELIGION" FOR CHRIST.  MUCH OF THEIR
>TEACHINGS ARE NONSENSE AND FALSE.

So Scientologists are going to your hell for not believing in your god?
What distinguishes true teachings from ones that are 'nonsense and false?'

>THE WORD OF GOD (THE BIBLE) SAYS THAT IT WAS WITH HIM WAITING TO BE SPOKEN IN
>JOHN 1:1,2 "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE
>WORD WAS GOD.  HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING."  ALSO THE WORD SAYS THAT IT
[bla bla bla]

Those words have less meaning than puke in the dust for us non-xtians.

>D  And you're as good as dead.  Pointing out fallicies in christianity is
>D  like counting blades of grass.
> 
>I'M AS GOOD AS DEAD?  ARE YOU COMING AFTER ME OR SOMETHING?  POINTING OUT

We're coming to get you.  Another dead xtian for the cause.  I'm chanting
the death mantra right now, you should be dead by the time you read this.

[...]
>YOUR OPPRESSION.  DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE MONEY SPENT HERE, FOR YOU SPEND THE
>SAME MONEY.  HOW LONG WILL I HAVE THE CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH YOU?  WILL NOT THE
>POOR ALWAYS BE WITH US?  BLESSED ARE THE POOR IN SPIRIT.  HOW LONG WILL THE
>WICKED GO AGAINST GOD.  YOU ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST GOD.  HOW LONG WILL YOU
>FIGHT AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT?

I don't give money to religious zealots as many of your kind do.  I am neither
for nor against god.  And I don't fight against the holy spirit, I just
laugh at it..  It's funny lookin'.  

>Evan Marshall
>marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
>
>Proverbs 4:2 "I give you sound learning,
>                so do not forsake my teaching."

   "THREE DAYS TO RISE
   IF HE LIVES AGAIN HE IS SURE TO DIE
   I KILLED JESUS
   JUST TO SEE HIM BLEED ON HIS PULPIS THRONE
   I AM EVIL!
   I'M THE DEICIDE AND I KILLED THE LORD
   NO MORE REASONS
   I WILL KILL THE WORLD IN ANOTHER FORM"

	-- Deicide, "Deicide," 1990.

-marc anderson
andersom@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rdr@panix.com (Reuben Radding)
Subject: Re: Satan
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:15:59 GMT
Organization: Disorganization Datorganization

In <kgqPoB2w164w@cyberden.uucp> moon!cyberden!impmat@well.sf.ca.us writes:

>All Satanists are Christians.  All Satanists believe in a higher power.  
>Most Satanists are painfully conventional and uninteresting.  I am not a 
>Christian.  Therefore I can't be a Satanist.  In order to be a Satanist 
>you must believe in God.  For the most part people who can allow 
>themselves to believe in God are boring and conventional.  This is why 
>most Satanists are boring and predictable.  People who believe in Social 
>Darwinism are not neccessarily Satanists.  They tend to be a little more 
>interesting than Satanists(Christians).  Good Night

Gee pal, I'm a Satanist and *I* don't believe in God, or a "higher power."
Some of us use Satan as a symbol, a role model. To be a satan-IST is to
utilize Satan. In my case to utilize this symbol is not necessarily to
worship it. Nighty night. . .

 
-- 
================================================================
|  Reuben Radding         rdr@panix.com       cmcl2!panix!rdr  |
|==============================================================|
| ******************* Marrou / Lord in 1992 ****************** |
From: valerie@ucsd.edu (Valerie Polichar)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: oh, my.
Date: 23 Jul 1992 21:53:53 GMT
Organization: UCSD Network Operations
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigblack.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Jul20.101623.5676@iscsvax.uni.edu>, marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes: 
> "They say that God is oh so tasteless,
>         but they've never tasted Him.
>  Taste and see that the Lord is good,
>         taste and see, He's so good for you."
>                                 --- Newsboys

Oral sex with God?

Holy Condoms, Batman!
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:54:19 -0400 
From: "Andrew E. Switala" <as7y+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Sin but still go to heaven?
	<1992Jul22.222103.15450@shearson.com>

>The bible is NOT history.
     I agree with that completely.  It is not history and, I believe,
was never meant to be a history book or a science text or any other type
of factual account.  However, I do not think that it is a work of
fiction, either.  The Bible should not be put in the same place in the
library as the Lord of the Rings, but alongside Nietszche, Descartes,
etc.  It is a book of philosophy and was meant to contain a
philosophical message.  This original intent has been corrupted
throughout the centuries by the Christians.

>I don't go through much trouble. Once in a while I find it amusing to
>debate with the odd fool, so I do it. However, there isn't any god.
     Making the statement that there is no god is just as foolish as
saying that there is with no other justification than "there's no proof
otherwise".  If one does so, one will eventually be faced with the
dilemma: What needs to be proven?  In regards to the purple rabbit
comment, I can't say that there is no rabbit because there is no proof
of his existence.  Likewise I can't say that there is a rabbit because
there is no proof that he doesn't exist.  There is absolutely nothing in
either statement that makes it better than the other.  It IS correct to
say that there is no giant purple rabbit behind me because the way that
a rabbit's body functions allows no natural means of becoming invisible
when I turn my head to look behind me.
     There is no published scientific paper on God's nature.  God's
existence is an open issue that cannot be solved by lack of proof
arguments.  Scientific types often criticize the lack of scientific
evidence for the existence of a deity.  However, these same scientific
types, of which I am one, by the way, will put their admiration in those
who seek the theory of quantum gravity, even though there is no proof
that such a theory exists.  Scientists simply rationalize that one
exists because: a) Relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics
and: b) There is a quantum theory for the other three forces.
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:33:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul23.122444.5752@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>I have many questions now.  First which is WHY?  Why have you forsaken,
>not-followed, or not cared to think about --- God?

None of your damned business.  Why should we have to justify ourselves,
our beliefs, to you?  Why don't you just leave us alone?

Tim
From: rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Lost Books of the Bible
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:06:10 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


	While this techinically may belong in another newsgroup, I thought
I'd try my luck here.  Has anyone read it and do you recommend it.  I've 
heard a few excerpts from it, and think that if what is contained therein is
true or at least supported by some historical reference, it may be of great
interest to Satanists.
	Included within (from what I've heard):
	
	- A passage where Jesus, playing on the Sabbath, creates clay figures
	  which he proceeds to bring to life.  A fellow child tells him that
	  it isn't right to do that and jc proceeds to kill him.
	- A passage where jc is walking with joseph when a young boy accident-
	  ally runs into him and knocks him down.  "As thou hast laid me down,
	  so shalt thou fall," jc says, "nor to ever rise."  And the boy falls
	  down dead.
	- Info on who ordered what portions to be stricken from subsequent
	  versions of the bible and why.

				Any info out there?
					Raymond H. Rich
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: hastur@miskatonic.edu (Hastur)
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS
Organization: Miskatonic University, Arkham Mass., USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:14:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.122444.5752@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>I have many questions now.  First which is WHY?  Why have you forsaken,
>not-followed, or not cared to think about --- God?

Oh, this is really quite simple. Because we find your religion revolting.
Personally, I'd rather suffer for an eternity than submit to your puny
mindless god (but that really isn't the choice we have to make anyway).

The xian bible is full of lies. Sure it is laced with some truth and
historical fact, but the most insidious lies are the ones laced with
various facts and half truths, but are still lies in every essential way.

Geez, every time I hear one of these xians going on about how
we should become the slaves of the white vampyre, I want to puke.

jesus is a fag
his daddy is a nag
his bible is a shitty rag
all hail SATAN!

The path to salvation does not involve becoming a slave that licks
the boots of the xian god of death who poses as a god of life, but through
realizing your SELF in the context of Satanic enlightenment.

Your time is gone, xians. Your god is dead, irrelevant and impotent in
this Satanic age. xianity is nothing more than a sick pathetic piece of
nostalgia for a religion of the past. Xianity died from internal
corruption and decadence long ago. This is our age, the age of Satan.

666
Your "friend" Hastur
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: joshua salter <jsalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: You're all missing the point...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:40:31 GMT


	Be rational. Believing in things is not going to help you any more than
you would be helped otherwise. If you need answers to such questions as: where
did the universe come from, & what happens after I die; turn to philosophy, 
don't take the easy (mentally) way out and subscribe to a religion (or cult, 
it makes no difference to me what they call it). And using circular reasoning
to justify your beliefs to justify your actions is rather idiotic and self-
demeaning. If you cannot get a life (I can't), at least get a mind. And that
goes for both of you! (Fundies and Satanists).

								-jsalter

				"Cogito, Erog Sum." - Descartes
				<I think, therefore I am.>

(Sorry about my misquote, it should read, "Cogito, Ergo Sum.")
From: rdr@panix.com (Reuben Radding)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: xians here
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:33:59 GMT
Organization: Disorganization Datorganization

In <1992Jul29.082659.18765@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> locklin@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Scott Locklin) writes:


>In response to Ross' request for information as to the philosophy
>of Satanists; Read Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. If you don't bother
>reading the literature of your philosophical enemy you are in NO position
>to attack their positions as you know not where they stand... Most Satanists
>are ex-christians; which gives them a at least some kind of idea what 
>xtian beliefs are (an interesting point;you don't find too many satanists
>who come from agnostic or atheist families-I'll come back to this later)


Hmmmm. Quite a few are ex-Christians, but I wonder about "most." 
Where is your info from?
 
>I think THE main point of Satanism is that it is a LIFE-affirming religion
>this is directly orthoganal to the christian life denying beliefs (the meek 
>shall inherit the earth & waiting for the afterlife for your pleasures ect)

"Indulgence not abstinence."
 

>Satanism is honesty; we are all animals; lets enjoy it rather than pose as 
>something we're not.

Man creates his own gods, not the other way around.

>Satanism is the use of all the resources available to the human animal;
>we should develop and strengthen the hidden powers of the mind.

And let reason rule the earth!


>Satanism is self-reliance; we need no gods in our universe we call on the
>gods within us all.

We do evertything that Gods can do. Create, destroy, indulge, you name it.
 

>Another key point to remember is that most Satanists are ex-christians. Some
>of it probobly has to do with the transition into adulthood;satanism represent
>a breaking of childhood ties to religion. This does not reduce its significanc
>in any way;after all how many xtians are xtians because they were brought up 
>that way? The least you can say about Satanism is that is a conscious
>choice in its practitioner; this represents a maturity most xtains lack; how
>many bother to question the tenets of their faith, or even know what they are.

Yeah, but when the fundies become born-again or otherwise CHOOSE their
religion it's still just as stupid a choice as it would have been otherwise.
:-)


>Suggested reading; Prometheus Rising by Robert A Wilson
>Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey
>Black Flame and Abrasax magazine...

You got my support there, pal...

-- 
================================================================
|  Reuben Radding         rdr@panix.com       cmcl2!panix!rdr  |
|==============================================================|
| ******************* Marrou / Lord in 1992 ****************** | 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism