From: radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky)
Subject: Re: Some views about satanism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:42:11 GMT

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...

>> 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.

> 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)

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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
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)

>>	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...

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.

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."

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

>>> 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?

>> 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.

> 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.

puppy anxious the,
\/\/aaaayne
Newsgroups: alt.satanism