From: an8222@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Morals & Laws (yet again)
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.satanism
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:54:02 GMT


In article <1993Jan25.044211.8540@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
>locklin@titan.ucs.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>> radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
>>> My friend,  you understand  perfectly!   If  a person is killing innocent
>>> people,  by killing them you may save lives.   What about people who kill
>>> extremely abusive parents? What about those who attempted to kill Hitler?
>>> If they had succeeded, they'd be heros, not killers!  What about war?  If
>>> we do to war,  isn't our killing justified,  or  not  justified,   by our
>>> reasons for going to war?
>> 
>> *shrug*  I have no clearly defined (simplistic)  set of moralities.   Each
>> situation would have to be individually judged...
>
>A legalist with no laws...

I said moralities, not laws. And yes, I have no simplistic set of laws either.
There are "mitigating circumstances" for every "law," in my life, and in
the legal system. Perhaps you should say "A legalist with no mandatory 
sentances"
Because of the way many (most) religions enforce their brand of morality as
"law" there is not always a clear distinction beetwen morals & laws.
This logical error carris over into our culture in the form of laws that 
attempt to dictate morality.
 
>>> My position  is  even justified by the Bible:  read Joshua,  where Israel
>>> conquers the Canaan -- killing and pillaging, not just at God's approval,
>>> but at God's command.
>> 
>> As far as _this_ goes,   it  has  nothing to do with what I said in the me
>> last set of comments.  "God's approval"  has nothing to do with what I was
>> speaking  of  and  should never be used as an  excuse  for  anything  like
>> genocide.
>
>Well,  it might be off the  subject,   but it =is= what the Bible says.  I'm
>totally amazed we have a satanist arguing  for legalism.  That's supposed to
>be the Christian position  (lots  of  them  act  that  way anyway),  or so I
>thought.

What is what the bible says? You are certainly avoiding the subject at hand
which was your comparison of moral relativity to the xenocide in the old
testament. My moral relativity is not that which justifies any action or
order given by a "god", but the moral relativism of mitigating circumstances,
and individual situations.

>> Saying  it  was  "God's will" removes the responsibility  of  the  Khabiru
>> (roughly translated as "Vagrants" in Akkadian & the root of "Hebrew")  for
>> their genocidal exploits of the past.  Eases their conscience on what they
>> did & gives them licence for all manner of genocidal adventured (which, to
>> a lesser extent,   continue  today  among  their genetic and philosophical
>> descendants)

(note the skillful avoidance of the subject at hand again)

>It (non-legalism in general)   doesn't  relieve  anyone  of  responsibility.
>People break the spirit of the law (that is,  the reason why a law was made)
>all  the  time,   even  if  they  don't  break the letter of the law.   Then
>You have to go back and fill in the loopholes in the laws.  Like you say:
>
>> Morality cannot be controlled  by  legislation  in  anything approaching a
>> "free" society.
>
>Amen.
>
>>>> I like legalism. Makes life simpler.
>>> 
>>> Yeah,  too simple.  And it  backfires,  too.  The harder you try =not= to
>>> think about sex, or drugs, or someone you hate, the more it gets stuck in
>>> your brain.  Close your mind  and  force  all thoughts of sex out of your
>>> mind!
>> 
>> Er,  what kind of legalism tells one not to  think  of  sex,  drugs & etc?
>> (there are laws banning porn & certain sexual behaviors,  but none against
>> thought yet)
>
>Thoughts are actually more important than actions.  Suppose someone gave you
>a gift.  Great, huh?  Now suppose their intent was to make you feel indebted
>to them, i.e. to manipulate you in some way. Ah-ha -- same action, different
>thought -- it changes everything.

Again, you avoid the topic. These thoughts to which I refer should have nothing
to do with laws. The fact that to you "thoughts are more important than 
actions" implies that you seek better mind controll. The modern day example
of speech codes is one step in the direction of "thought controll."
The crux of the matter is this; There are two kinds of "morality" that are
being confused here. We have the obviously harmful to other individuals in
a society; rape, murder, armed robbery, burgulary, kidnapping etc. These I 
will call _external_ crimes.
Then we have "victimless" crimes; drug use, prostitution, sodomy etc. 
_internal_ crimes.

The external crimes consist of one or more persons actively harming
others, usually in an active way. These cannot be tolerated in any form
of "society." Even in an anarchist culture, groups would be formed (creating
a "law-enforcing" subculture) to protect their members from such "crimes."

The internal crimes only harm the person comitting the "crime."
Only by vapid Marxist/Collectivist/Socialist "reasoning" can one make in
internal crime look external (One of my favorite "reasons" to keep drugs
illegal is that it would harm some abstract concept called "productivity" which
is in & of itself a dubious statement, and foolish even should it be a truthful
statement. Plain old laziness should be a far greater crime by this reasoning)

I would imagine that there is some "grey area" in this admittedly simplistic
(but powerful) model. Incest comes to mind. In many cultures it is acceptable
& harms noone involved. Here it is stigmatized & hance extremely damaging to 
some (also debatable, but I have no interest in these things. See 
alt.sex.groups for discussion of these topics)

>What kind of legalism tells you not to think of sex?  That doesn't matter --
>my point is that trying to  stop  a  thought  only  makes you think about it
>more.  Don't think about purple snakes.  Same problem. Or, more practically,
>suppose you are angry at someone.  The more you think about it,  the angrier
>you will get.  And the anger is far more significant  than specific actions.
>Suppose you hit him with a baseball bat.  His reaction will probably be very
>different if he thinks you did it out of anger or you did it by accident.

Yes, yes I get the point. To answer my own question, the catholic church has
strong prohibitions against thinking of sex; it is considered sinful. In
their "legal system" it is a "crime." Of course this is obviously to create
guilt in the poor slobs who try not to think of sex, hence keeping them
under tight controll on peril of their immortal souls. 
To paraphrase Ayn Rand's prophetic words- Of course everything is illigal;
when everything is illigal, everyone is guilty. This is where the true power
of govornment arises.
This "legalism" that makes victimless crimes into crimes is what much of the 
Satanic spirit is all about.
"Cursed are those who tell truth for lies and lies for truth, for they are an
abomination"-AL (awright, not the most relevant quote, but it portrays the
spirit of the matter if not the actual crux. It also has the great virtue of
being one of the S.B. quotes I remember)
"The most dangerous lie is the sacred lie, the one told to the child while
on its mother's knee... We must annihalate these lies, exterminate them root
and branch..."  
IMHO the biggest root of sacred lies in our society is xtianity. Where else
does these silly pruderies & puritanisms come from? Certainly not the
cultures of the greeks & romans that ours is supposedly based on...

>> The ones that attempt to dictate action on these topics (like Prostitution
>> laws & prohibition),  which  are  moral/religious  laws rather than common
>> good  laws,  are notorious for their failures and extreme  repressiveness.
>> These laws  are  the  ones  that  are turning our present culture into one
>> based on fear, repression, hate & mistrust.
>
>I agree.  The intent of such  laws  is  to  control people's =thoughts=.  To
>legislate goodness into people's hearts -- which never works.
>
>That's why I don't believe in legalism.  It's like trying not to think about
>sex. It just doesn't work.

Assuming you still hold that some thoughts are "immoral" and should be
avoided, what is your modus operandi for this? (forgive the hacked latin)

>> Morality cannot be controlled by legislation  in  anything  approaching  a
>> "free"  society.  With any luck,  people will begin to realize this in our
>> own culture.
>> 
>>> I agree with  Paul  the  apostle,   that  this  kind of legalism leads to
>>> judgement, condemnation, self-hatred, hatred, etc, etc, etc.
>> 
>> Paul (who was not an apostle)  is the fellow who  is primarily responsible
>> for this "legalism" in xtianity.  He is the one that  emphasised purity of
>> the  body  &  spirit.   Shit,   Jesus  was  the  one  who associated  with
>> prostitutes, not Paul.
>
>Paul was not a "disciple", you mean (i.e.  he never knew Jesus before he was

I meant exactly what I said. You called him "Paul the Apostle" and I corrected
you. I made the very large assumption that Paul actually follows the teachings
of Jesus, which, though it is "common wisdom," is doubtful as shown with a bit
of reading.

>crucified).  Although Jesus  spoke  out against "adultery",  Paul had a much
>more anti-sexual attitude.  He says "it  is  better for a man not to touch a
>woman" -- however,  I think being married is a  much  more natural state for
>people to be in.  (I'm getting off the subject again)

Exactly (on all regards with slight exception to marriage; it may be true
for you, but there are others to whom this does not apply). 

>>>	Q.  How may I know when the  will  to  a  couse of action is
>>>	justifiable, or when I am forcing my own personal will which
>>>	may lead to inaction which is equally unjustifiable?
>>>
>>>	A.  By listening within -- there is the answer.   For,   the
>>>	answer to every problem, the answer to know His way, is ever
>>>	within  --  the  answering within to that real desire,  that
>>>	real purpose which motivates activity in the individual.
>> 
>> I  prefer to use logic & deductive  reasoning  rather  than  listening  to
>> hallucinated voices. I think most would agree.
>
>Why don't you prejudge words by their author...

"Listening within" sounds like hallucinated voices to me. Many fundies hear
"the voice of god" in one way or another. Its origins are a mild form of
psychosis... I've been reading a book by Jullian Jaynes called
"Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
It is heady stuff & I am still under its spell a bit; I suggest you check it
out to see of what I speak. It is not accepted by the mainstream but
at least some of his theory is close to the "truth," as disturbing as it may
be.

>He did not say to listen to hallucinated voices. He is saying each of us has
>an intuitive notion of what  our  purpose  is  in  this  world,   and we can
>=choose=  whether  or  not  to  live it out.  Figurtively speaking,  we  can
>"listen" or not.

According to Jaynes thesis, there may be very little difference between the
two...

>In other words,  we all know inside whether we are doing what's right or not
>-- and that's why we don't need legalism.
>
>"To thine own heart always be true."
>	-- Shakespere
>
>>>	These appear at times  to  become contradictory,  of course;
>>>	but  know  -- as the illustration  has  been  used  here  --
>>>	attunement,  atonement and at-onement are *one*; just as the
>>>	inner self is  that  portion  of  the  infinite,   while the
>>>	self-will  or  personality  is ever at war with the infinite
>>>	within -- for the lack of what may be called stamina, faith,
>>>	patience,  or whatnot.  Yet each  entity,  each soul,  knows
>>>	within when it is in an at-onement.
>>>
>>>					-- Edgar Cayce
>>
>> Yah,  Edgar Cayce probobly  _would_  rather  listen to his hallucinations.
>> BTW,   I am waiting for atlantis to rise (was supposed  to  happen  in  th
>> 1960's & a couple of volcanoes do not count in my book)
>
>Well, the Bimini Wall was discovered within that time frame.  (And he didn't
>exactly say Atlantis was going  to  rise...   Although  (obviously)   he did
>believe it existed).
>
>Cayce  has his prophetic blunders.  China was supposed to become the "Cradle
>of Christianity" by 1968.  Check your history book -- Mao and the Communists
>came in the "Cultural Revolution."

Hmmm. Maybee old Ed did get it right (like the Cybelles; close to the truth).
In many important sociological & historical ways, communism is an outgrowth 
of xtianity, a similar social phenomenon.
Examples? "Fundamentalist" fervor & purging (similar to historic witch hunts)
Anti-intellectualism
Collectivisation
Attempted Thought controll
Deification of leader etc

>Still, his prophecy of "freedom" in Russia has proven to be remarkably true.

Wishful thinking at the time...

>But more still has to happen...   Russia's religious development,  guided by
>the US, must become the hope of the world. (But I digress again).

Ah, so Russians are going to become the Satanist nation?! I have always (well
since the attempted coup) thought this place is primed for a "Captain of
Industry" (or "Robber/Baron" depending on you point of view) to take charge..
And yes, these folks are Satanic in deed & occasionally in word. See the life
of Carnegie & co for many examples.

>>>> Well then Wayne, what about sex?  Should we (xtains) let the Homosexuals
>>>> do their thing if it is of good intent?
>>> 
>>> I don't know.  The only plausable  cause of homosexuality I've ever heard
>>> is the reincarnationist viewpoint:   namely,   a person incarnates as one
>>> sex, say
>> 
>> You  call  this  a  plausible  cause?   Do  you  have  any   evidence   of
>> reincarnation?
>
>Plausible if you believe in reincarnation, I should have said. And I believe
>I've already discussed what "evidence" I have of reincarnation.
>
>> I'll take the psychological theories as more useful,  untill better models
>> are proposed.
>
>What are the psychological theories?

I have heard one that male homosexuality is a way of its practitioner to deal
with unresolved fears about important male figures in their childhoods.
Is this true? I dunno... A good test is to see how many homosexual men
have internal conflicts over male role models vs the ratio of
similar conflicts in non-closeted "straight" men. I really do not care if
it is true, but it is a more useful, and testable hypothesis than 
reincarnation (who's prime "evidence" is hypnogogic regression; the same
technique that brings us UFO abductions, Satanic snuff cults, hidden
Incest and "abuse" memories & other such dubious things. I find it interetsing
that most when they regress were nobility of some kind in past lives. How
is this possible when most people were peasants [my mom's $0.02 BTW. She does
these regressions as therapy])

>>> and there's also no "why"  of  quanta,   and  no  "why"  of particle-wave
>>> duality, and no "why" of the uncertainty principle, and no "why" it's all
>>> probabilistic,   with  (apparently)   nothing deterministic "behind"  the
>>> probabilities.
>> 
>> Even if everything was rigorously deterministic,   I still say there is no
>> "why" in physics.
>
>I agree.  However,  the lack  of  determinism  does  mytify  things a bit...
>don't'cha think?  I mean, the location of an electron in an atom ought to be
>determined by =something=,  right?  But no "something" has ever  been found,
>just  that  it's "more likely" to be in one place than another.  Maybe  it's
>God, in control of everything after all.

Maybee it is a funny little elf. Maybee you subconsciously controll the
"determinism" in your sleep (Ever read LeGuin's "Lathe of Heavan"?). Maybee
QM "indeterminism" is correctly explained by pure wave mechanics (many-worlds
theory). Untill there is some evidence for any of these ideas (actually there
are some good arguments for the latter to make QM consistant with general
relativity) the question is moot as there are in infinite number of equally
likely theories.
>
>> There are,  of course  deeper  levels of "how," & eventually you get silly
>> questions  from  asking  "how"  as  well  (or  perhaps  merely  unanswered
>> questions).
>
>That was my point... I think we agree on the physics, once the difference in
>interpretation of "human logic" is cleared up.

Cool. It seems to be a language problem. One must formulate questions with
a minimum amount of information...

-Scott



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.