HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Jesus?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 14:02:26 GMT

dementia@cheshire.oxy.edu (Daniel Steven Reinker) writes in

>In article <92275.81972.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LM
                       <<Dimentia's previous post deleted>>

>>If what you believe is wrong, would you want to know about it?  Since this
>>is alt.satanism, an e-mail response will suffice.
>>
>>
>There is no way you could prove to me that this is wrong. You point to the
>bible and say, look at this, you are wrong. I point to humanity, and say,
>look at this, YOU are wrong. I am not willing to get into a battle of beliefs
>since it is impossible to win.

You didn't answer my question.  If what you believed were untrue, would you
want to know about it?  The answer is either, "Yes," or "No."
From: bc205cs@opie.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: Yeshua?
Organization: Bowling Green State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:11:44 GMT


Why do you guys even bother arguing with locklin?  I think we all agree that
the idea of xianity is completely absurd, and that the arguments locklin uses
are the same old moronic arguments that these people have clung to for ages.

I think that the atheism FAQ contains a nice rebuttal of any argument locklin
would like to make, so why don't we all e-mail him a copy of it?  When locklin
can come up with an issue that is not addressed in the atheism FAQ, then I am
sure that we will all be more than happy to spend a little time shattering it,
but otherwise, we shouldn't let him waste our time.

--Joshua
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Ye Great Sinners
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:11:27 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>
>-- 
>We'll know who's right in the end    *     Evan Marshall
>Every knee shall bow                 *     marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
>We'll know who's right in the end    *
>Every tongue confess                 *

Well, I seem to have been mistaken in my xtians-as-masochists idea... Seems
we have at least one sadistic xtian here...
THen again, his post was pretty masochistic...
I suppose this is all an aspect of the same psychological phenomenon...

You must accept the law of Cthulhu! (every Knee shall bow[shatter])

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Ye Great Sinners
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:35:43 GMT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep28.140529.7140@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> Well, I seem to have been mistaken in my xtians-as-masochists idea... Seems
>> we have at least one sadistic xtian here...
>> THen again, his post was pretty masochistic...
>> I suppose this is all an aspect of the same psychological phenomenon...
>> 
>> You must accept the law of Cthulhu! (every Knee shall bow[shatter])
>> 
>> -Scott
>
>Scott, isn't Cthulhu like a comic-book character?

No, but I _have_ seen Jesus comix; who worships comix here?
(If there is a Cthulhu comix it is a product of the illuminist comspiracy)

ye servante etc..

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: jwi@world.std.com (Jazzman)
Subject: Comments on: LIBER CHAOS by Peter Carroll??
Keywords: chaos magick, liber null
Organization: Nexus
Distribution: alt.satanism,alt.evil,alt.pagan,alt.magick
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:33:07 GMT

Peter Carroll has a recent book out called "Liber Chaos."  Has anyone
read it and, if so, what are you comments about it?

Lacking any reviews I suppose I'll just buy it and read it myself but,
being
a relative newbie, I'm not sure my review would be valuable as that of
a more experienced individual.

Regards,

         John



Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Jesus?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:21:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <92280.39468.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>Didn't your god give us free will so we could choose our own path?
>
>Yes, that's why I prefer OS/2 and Unix over MSDOS and Windows.

of course, theological choices are out of the question. How can you compare 
UNIX to windows or MSDOS? There ain't no support for os/2...
>
>>We have chosen our path, please go away.
>
>When you're finished bashing Christianity and Christ, I will.

The only time christianity is "bashed" here is when someone like yourself 
begins to preach; and what do you expect?

in Cthulhu's hyphae...
-Scott
From: dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Idbil Fubar)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Bible Fun Fact!
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:41:07 GMT
Organization: UB

J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy) writes in
>Message-ID: <1a2hqtINNpe5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
>>
>>Hey, heres something i found tremendously interesting.
>>
>>Moses has horns.  Or was always portrayed as having horns in
>>classical religious art until the late middle ages, because of a
>>mis-translation of the bible.  A friend of mine learned of this
>>in an art history class.

>Care to elaborate a bit?

If I may...The verse (I can't remember which one) says something about 
Moses having horns in the english transliteration.  What the original text
was saying was something about the moon (which because of it's phases 
can look as though it has horns) in connection with him at the time...
My hint to the world?  Tell all of them Fucking bible thumpers to learn
the sixty some odd languages that comprise the original UNTRANSLATED texts
to the bible...and if they don't learn...or if it doesn't exist anymore...
THEN FUCKING SHUT UP.  (Man...I hate fundamentalists knocking on my door)

Idbil Fubar
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:18:55 EDT
From: <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Buddhist Martyrs

See Joseph Campbell, Masks of God: Oriental Mythology, pp. 509-515
for accounts of thousands of Buddhist monks tortured and murdered
during the Rep. of China's takeover of Tibet and their subsequent
efforts to replace the cult of Buddha with the cult of Mao.

Bill Ellis
FOAFtale News
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Military and Satanic Organizations
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:35:19 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

I'm posting for Scott; he's having trouble with the newserver again.

--Semhaza

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting fact;
Ever notice that both the founder of the Church of Satan (Anton LaVey) and
the founder of the Temple of Set (Micheal Aquino) had police/military
careers previous to their careers (and concurrent in Aquino's case I believe)
as religious leaders? LaVey was a Police Photographer and Aquino was a
Lieutenant Colonel in the army.
Does anyone else see anything in this, or is it just me who sees the common
thread of authoritarian/personal anarchy in the philosophy of these, the
two biggest "Satanic" organizations...
Hmmm. L.Ron Hubbard was _supposedly_ a navy fighter pilot (This is not clear)

Anyone getting the picture yet. What is it that the military and religions
have in common?

thoughtfully yrs (under the elder sign)
-Scott
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:28:39 EDT
From: <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Aimless thoughts on Satanism
 <1992Oct1.192927.19383@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>

What I'd like to hear (aimlessly or elegantly) is how satanism differs from
immemorial realism, as expressed ca.  1000 BC by Koheleth [the Preacher?
Philosopher?  Plain Speaker?]:

...all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the
wise and their deeds are in the hand of God; wheter it is love or hate man
dopes not know.  Everything before them is vanity [wind, mist, breath],
since one fate comes to all, to the righteous and th wicked, to the good and
the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who
does not sacrifice.  As is the good man, so is the sinner; and he who swears
is as he who shuns an oath.  This is an evil in all that is done under the
sun, that one fate comes to all; also the hearts of men are full of evil,
and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to
the dead.  . . . Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with
a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do.  Let your garments
be always white; let not oil be lacking on your head.  Enjoy life with the
wife whom you love, all the days of your vain [empty, transitory] life which
he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in
your toil at which you toil under the sun.  Whatever your hand finds to do,
do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom
in Sheol, to which you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:1-3,7-10)

That's the inspired, infallible Word of God, no?  No? well, has satanism
improved on it in any way?  (Or has the Judeo-Christian tradition simply
drifted away from it.)
...............................................................................
Bill Ellis (wce2 @ psuvm.pus.edu)                 Editor, FOAFtale News
Penn State, Hazleton Campus                       Voice: 717-450-3026
Hazleton, PA 18201-1291                           Fax: 717-450-3182
"I now know that thy right worship is defiance. To neither love nor reverence
 wilt thou be kind; and e'en for hate thou canst but kill; and all are killed."
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: The Alt.Satanism FAQ
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:36:41 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct4.230621.23686@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
> 
> 
> Here it is, reposted so as to reach the newbie.
> Note that this is still under construction....

[one FAQ deleted]

> comments;
> we now have some better info on Temple of Set. A paragraph or two of propaganda
> from uncle Setkmet (or whatever) might look nice in the FAQ. A paragraph or
> two about the church of Satan would look good as well; actually seperate FAQ's
> on these groups would be the most appropriate (IMHO).

'Twould perhaps be easier to sum up what our kind Uncle has writ, rather than
to quote, as his writings are copious. Perhaps a summation, with a quote or two
as a sample...

Don't know about a separate FAQ; I hate to see numerous FAQs floating in one
newsgroup so small. It doesn't seem warranted to me. We oculd simply expand it
a little more.
 
> Any other FAQ ideas? Some of Bill Ellis' stuff would look good in a FAQ....

It doesn't seem easily FAQable to me...
 
> keeper of the FAQ (untill Semhaza is finished)
> -Scott

--Semhaza 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Bible Fun Fact!
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:01:55 GMT
 <1992Sep30.021009.8923@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

I believe the "horns" passage is Exodus 34:29 ff, which in my RSV says
"the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God."  I
believe that the original Hebrew implies that there was something like beams
of an aura shining around him, and when Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate, he
used the word "cornu" to refer to this phenomenon.  This was, obviously,
misconstrued by many non-Hebrew, non-Greek readers, including, I believe,
Michaelangelo, who puts horns on his statue of Moses (or is it the Sistine
Chapel image of him?).

There is, BTW, a widespread folktale about a king who has horns, and tells only
one person about it--his hairdresser or barber.  The barber eventually cannot
hide the secret, digs a hole, and whispers the secret into it. By the time s/he
gets back to town, everyone knows about it: even the grass cannot help but
spread the news.  My daughter knows this from a story tape as "The King of
Togo-Togo," but I know it was around in antiquity.  Maybe this influenced the
understanding of the Latin translation.

Bill Ellis
FOAFtale News
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Aimless thoughts on Satanism
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:06:56 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

I am confused.

Following the appearance of a certain Xian Satanist who will remain unnamed,
discussions occurred involving the exchanges of belief systems of
self-described "Satanists." During this discussion, I was described as "grim"
and others expressed views full of optimism about the universe in general.

I am at a loss to explain how one could hold such views and call oneself
"Satanic." Isn't Satan about darkness, death, endings? Isn't it unsatanic to
maintain anything but the supremacy of Destruction?

We are going to die. How can anyone get around that?

I don't see myself as grim. Death-obsessed, maybe. But it makes me feel *good*!
I am *happy* that we are all going to die! I think it's *fun*!

It's only when I lose sight of that and get caught up with living on the
assumption that it will go on forever that I start feeling like shit. Or when I
used to operate on the premise that there is some esential goodness to the
universe.

How can anyone who feels otherwise than negative defend themselves as being
Satanic?

I have also verified that I am the alt.satan loonie :-) That is that I am the
only one to stand up in public (at the moment) and say, "Yes, I believe in
Satan! I believe in demons! Life is evil and I love it!" I am disappointed
because I had hoped that at least I would find some freshman doing it as a
stunt.

Sigh. I seem to be short on time at the moment, but hopefully I *will* get to
work on the FAQ, and to come up with a more coherent explanation of my
worldview for Thyagi to tear apart.

This aimless post has been brought to you courtesy of:

--Semhaza (The Antichrist)
"In Hell I burn, my faith is sustained
 In Hell I burn again
 In Hell I burn, no questions remain
 In Hell I burn for Satan"
	--Deicide (those happy fellows), " "(you get to guess)
From: pyuaq@warwick.ac.uk (Graeme Sutherland)
Subject: Re: A Few Comments from Uncle Sekhmet
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:50:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.011100.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu+ rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
+One more post I'm doing for Scott...
+
+--Semhaza
+ 
+You (Uncle Sekmet) :
+
+I am
+not interested in entering in Socratic dialogue wit in large.  I
+am not interested in being their teacher, nor in matters of
+philosophy am I interested in being their student. -- In matters
+other then philosophy I try very hard to adopt the attitudes of
+Socrates, the wisest man of Greece, who said, "I know nothing."   
+           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+SL} Personally, I think Socrates was an asshole. The guy singlehandedly 
+SL} distacted all succeeding (note the Crowleyan pun here, from book of lies) 
+SL} generations of Philosophers from questions of "Natural Philosophy"- i.e. 
+SL} physics, mathematics, biology, etc. to meaningless abstractions about 
+SL} divinity, spirit & etc; in essence Socrates was the first Theologen; all 
+SL} subsequent theolgens derived their methodology from Socrates. His mistake,
+SL}  attempting to apply logic to that for which it does
+SL} not apply, as some scientists apply linear analysis techniques to 
+SL} essentially non-linear phenomena. This gives a distorted, incomplete 
+SL} picture of what you try to describe.
+SL} Carl Sagan once said that if the schools of natural philosophers (in 
+SL} ancient Greece) were encouraged in their exploits, rather than distracted
+SL} by generations of religious debates & intolerances, we would be star-
+SL} travellers by now.

Erm Scott, you seem to be getting confused here. Ever read any Aristotle? For
the less educated amongst us, you will find that old Aristotle carried out
studies into the natural sciences, especially biology. OK, he did make some
serious mistakes due to Philosophical (especially Platonic) creed, such as
rejecting the theory of (Darwinist) evolution due to the Theory of the forms.

Secondly, if you read the Socratic dialogues, you will find that they change
heavilly in terms of style with Plato's age. Initially, they are closer to
the origional events, but Plato begins to infuse his own theories into them,
and thus advances Socratic thought into Platonic. I suspect that you are more
hostile to the Platonic aspects of the pair.

As for Socrates being a waste of time, I strongly disagree. He was the first
philosopher to actually criticise others theories. The Sophists tended to not
bother debating their theories, in fact they were openly encouraged to find
their own ideas on which the universe was based. His theories which lead onto
Aristotle's (Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle) which formed the
bedrock of Medieval sciences, from which modern ideas emerged.

+You (Uncle Sekmet) :
+
+Of course also there's cute
+babes dressed up like vampires running around, and a neat
+vacation in the International Conclaves.
+
+SL} WOW! Sign me up Uncle Sekmet! 

Me too! 

+-Scott (just Scott) <-- What? No Cthonic reference?

Graeme Sutherland.
From: rdr@panix.com (Reuben Radding)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Temple of Set: Letters from Uncle Setnakt
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:39:14 GMT
Organization: Doc Porter's Thrills Show

In <66368@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:

>9209.22 e.v.


>I have been contacted by a member of the Temple of Set who wishes to remain
>anonymous for hir own reasons.  S/He wishes to be known by the name of
>'Uncle Setnakt' and I will honor this desire as I post hir words.

He has also written for the now defunct 'zine The Watcher under the
same name.

[Uncle Setnakt writes:]
>I send my best wishes to the debaters and a sincere hope that
>their sparring leads to them finding what I see as the purpose of
>life -- the creation of themselves as immortal, potent and
>powerful essences.

Is this directed towards me? I am a SATANIST. I believe in the HERE
and NOW. I believe in life here on the planet. Not immortality.


>It is time wasting to point out that we do not worship
>some Egyptian deity, but exalt the Form of isolate intelligence
>in ourselves, maybe a dose of Plato would clear things up for
>people obsessed with what we do or do not do.

Perhaps what you do isn't "worship" per se, but it does involve
BELIEF in that diety. Or maybe you don't remember the contact
you had with Set (supposedly) in order to advance to the Priesthood.
 
Setians continually have complained that Anton LaVey "betrayed the Prince
of Darkness" which only goes to show that they pretend to be the
'Prince's' spokespersons, while LaVey never has.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reuben Radding           "Eliminate the ninnies       |  
rdr@panix.com             and the twits."             |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: dementia@cheshire.oxy.edu (Daniel Steven Reinker)
Subject: Jesus?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:14:16 GMT

The Xtians say Jesus died for our sins...but I don't buy it...I think 
humanity nailed him up there, then felt guilty about it afterwards and so
that's our excuse. 

Hiz Lord Dementia
-- 
"You can't help that. We're all mad here."-The cheshire cat, Alice in WL

"A mass hysteria/a megalomania/reveal Dementia/reveal"-Metallica                
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Bible Fun Fact!
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:10:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1a2hqtINNpe5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy) writes:
>
>	
>	Hey, heres something i found tremendously interesting.
>
>	Moses has horns.  Or was always portrayed as having horns in
>classical religious art until the late middle ages, because of a 
>mis-translation of the bible.  A friend of mine learned of this
>in an art history class.

I have seen this as well, I'm going to go look at Gardner's History of Art
soon as I leave here & give some refs tomorrow...

architect of the Cthuloid apocalypse...
-Scott
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Christians?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:33:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <66538@cup.portal.com> <1992Sep24.221440.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>

9209.28 e.v.

 
Semhaza writes:

[quoting me regarding the use of the term 'Christian']
 
> I most often use this term in reference to MYSELF to mean 'Anointed One',
> which roughly translates as 'Holy One' or 'Sacred One'.  Those who
> know themselves to be the Child of the Divine, the Sacred Regent who are,
> at some point, sacrificed upon the altar of Nature.  I
> use this definition when discussing the tradition with those who call
> all Christians 'sinners' and tell the 'sinners' that we're all 'going to
> Hell'.
> 
> 
> I sometimes use the term 'Christian' to mean 'one who places oneself
> upon the Cross (an esoteric concept) as a martyr unto God'.  This is often
> how I associate Christians, Satanists and Witches within or without the
> GMC.  I was referring to this when I said that Satanists and
> Witches are Christians.


How are they martyrs? I think of a martyr as a person sacrificing themselves to
impress others with how much suffering they can endure for their Cause, thus
demonstrating their Cause's worthiness (well, that's how they feel anyway).


Response:

NOW who's using an 'atypical' definition??  :>

My Bible (American Heritage Dictionary) says:

Martyr:  1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious
principles.  2. A person who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in
order to further a belief, cause or principle.  3. A person who endures
great suffering....  4. A person who makes a great show of suffering in
order to around sympathy.

From the Greek, 'martus', witness.  <------- NOTE


Ok, so perhaps #4 fits in with your definition here.  I meant that Satanists,
Witches, Christians, etc. have endured hardship BECAUSE of their identifica-
tion with the labels they use/d.  It is not about 'making a show'.  It is
about withstanding religious oppression in the pursuit of personal freedom.
The label 'satanist' (i.e. adversarialist) comes closest to the direct
challenge of this oppressive characteristic of the orthodoxy.  I'm sure
that it will also (as Temple of Set has so adequately shown) be co-opted
and a new version of the GMC will keep up the 'faith'.
 


Thyagi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I being clear, regardless how far out my ideas might sound?  :>
From: hopkins@agora.rain.com (Scott Hopkins)
Subject: Lost Book of the Bible?
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:47:57 GMT

Where can I get a copy of this?  I have heard it referred to as the "Lost
Books of the Bible", yet I can't locate it in any store.

	Thanks,
	-Casey
E-Mail me at hopkins@agora.rain.com

Newsgroups: alt.satanism