From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Some notes from the Satanic Bible
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:20:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <4eWFIsK00Uh_81ObZY@andrew.cmu.edu> rf1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Raymond Craig Feeck) writes:
>Um, Reuben, you seemed to have missed the point behind my statement
>about the motivations for rape.  Rape is not slavery to sexual desires,
>but rather an assertion of power over another.  In essence, its being
>the master of the earth and indulging in the power one has over another.
> Rapists are not compulsed to do anything.  That was the point of my
>original post.

	Actually, most rapists are compulsed to do things, but in working from
your assumptions, which are obvoiusly your favourite ones, consider the fact
that a satanist with any brains relaizes that if SHe does not respect the rights
of others to be god of their own worlds, SHe is likely to be the victim of them
using force to disallow Hir godship of personal world.

>
>Secondly, why should bestiality be wrong.  Its a decision to control the
>world around you.  It may seem sick to some, but it is a choice to do
>what one pleases.  Isn't that merely indulging in a rather bizarre form
>of pleasure.  You haven't resolved what to me seems like a pretty big
>inconsistancy.  

	No one ever specifically insisted that animals did not have their own
form of rights.  Animals follow instinct and emotion, rather than sapience and
emotion.  In their form of reality processing, following their instincts is the 
animal equivalent of us following our minds.  No animal has the instinct to fuck
or be fucked by a human, even your most hyper terrier.  Thus, in having sex with
an animal you are intrinsically raping that animal.  See the above response.

>
>I hope you don't take all of this probing and nitpicking the wrong way. 
>I merely want to learn more about what you believe.  As was pointed out,
>I'm not very knowledgable about Satanism, but I'm curious.  I'm very
>interested in finding the truth about the world.  I'm searching through
>the world's religions to discover what really does exist.   Any help
>would be appreciated. 

	Yon wandrer accidentally steps over the threshold of Chapel Perilous.

>
>Oh, one last question.  Since Satanism really isn't the worship of a
>diety, but rather a system of self indulgence, how can it be considered
>a religion.  Isn't a religion onw which seeks to find God or the power
>behind the universe.  How does Satanism meet this criteria.  

	That all depends upon your definition of a deity, in q #1.  When you 
worship a god, you indulge it.  When you worship yourself, you indulge yourself.
And no, a religion is NOT what seeks to find god or the power behind the universe.
A religion is a philosophical system of dealing with life, the universe, and 
everything.  Satanism does not meet that criterium, and that is OK, as it has no
need to.  Christianity deals with L, the U, &E by saying that GOD created it and
will take us to a better one if we do what he says, and if we don't he will torture
us.  Buddhism deals with it by saying that it just is, but if we question it we
will eventually understand it.  Satanism says that if you worry about it too much,
you will get brain fried so relax, have fun, and enjoy life just in case this is the
only one we get.
>
>What are y'all's impressions of Jesus, Mohammed, and Confucious?

	Jesus was a fairly hoopy frood, but Paul fucked his religion up.  Mohammed
was some flakey dude who thought he could be Jesus, and did a bit too much Amanita
Muscaria.  Confucious was a little too caught up in himself, but not as much as 
his folowers were caught up in him.  A true victim of Greyface.

	So, what do YOU think of Malaclypse the Younger, or, if that's too hard
a question, of RA Wilson?


			DODGER