HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:35:46 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <wezu5HO00aw5EHAZZa@andrew.cmu.edu> aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew N. Westmeyer) writes:
>Homosexuality is wrong.  This is an absolute (a bad word to some
>satanists), in other words, independant of one's religious affiliation. 
>By homosexuality, I mean homosexual BEHAVIOR, NOT ORIENTATION. 
>Psychologists today tell us that orientation may be genetic; thus it can
>not be the persons fault.  In this regard, homosexual orientation is no
>worse than having brown hair.  Activity is another story...
	
	Homosexuality is sex between two members of the same sex.  As long
as I'm not there and both are consenting adults, I don't give a fuck.
Homosexual behavior is NOT wrong.  Different, maybe.  Wrong, no.  There are
no absolutes.

>     As far as people using God to support anti-homosexual beliefs. 
>First of all, homosexuals should not be treated worse/differently than
>other people.  Paul tells us in his Epistles that homosexuality (there
>are two different words for this in the Greek, but that also is another
>story) is wrong.  To all Christians, this must be so.  If a particular
>denomination feels differently, then they must be reading an extremely
>poor translation of the Bible.  I myself would hardly quote the Bible in
>attacking homosexuality (ACTIVITY, remember), but since you asked...

	I also don't give a shit what Paul said about homosexuality.  He
is no more an authority on what is "right and wrong" than you are.

>     And concerning AIDS.  This was probably just some mutated virus or
>whatever.  I hardly think that God created it to punish homosexuals (esp
>because heterosexuals are getting it at a faster rate than homosexuals),
>but then again God works in mysterious ways, and there is nothing
>intrinsicly wrong with death.  Never threaten a true Christian with
>death!

	We created God.  Therefore, even if God created the virus, we created
it.  :)  Anyway, no matter how you look at it, AIDS is a problem we all must
face, not just homosexuals.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
homosexuality.  The only thing intrinsically wrong about death is that some
day it will deny me the privelege of living.  As for threatening a Christian,
try using logic, that sometimes works.

					Raymond H. Rich
					Devil's Advocate

>Andrew
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher)
Subject: Re: The Process Church
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:37:59 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>Maybe I am a flake. What do you think?
>
>--Semhaza 

People who entertain the thought of insanity are the most stable IMHO. Those
who emphatically declare themselves as NOT flakes, usually are (Diana are you
listening?). 
finger my .plan for insight.

-Lupo
From: rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: reality
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:07:12 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <of0U4By00WBOQ=lFhK@andrew.cmu.edu> aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew N. Westmeyer) writes:
>Hey guys,
>     What's going down?  If we could get off this sexuality topic for a
>little bit.  I see that all the arguments trace back to something even
>more fundamental.  I'd like to see some posts of people saying whether
>they believe in subjective or objective reality, and why.  For the
>purpose of convention, how about these as definitions:  Subjective
>reality means that truth is defined by the individual; in other words,
>something may be true for you, but not necessarily true for someone
>else.  Objective reality means that truth is predefined somehow, and it
>is the same for everyone; in other words, if something is objectively
>true, and you don't believe it, then your wrong.  These are some pretty
>short definitions, and admittedly there are some loopholes, but please,
>let's not get so literal.  I just want to hear some input as to which
>people think is correct.
>     Andrew

	I have spoken to people who've fried their brains so bad on drugs,
they don't even realize how damaged they are.  Also, the truly insane rarely
acknowledge their insanity.  I suspect all of our judgements are clouded in
this way to a somewhat lesser degree.
	Count me in for subjective reality, tho I believe there are some
basic physiological perceptions we all share (recognition of a square,
basic number theory, etc.) that are basically constant.

				Sorry if this is vague, but it's late.

							Raymond H. Rich
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Name That Deity contest!!!
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:13:20 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Nov18.190430.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

> So instead I want to try something different. I want to be 
> something else besides a Satanist. One little problem:  I need a
> good symbol. Are there any gods, or other appropriate beings, who
> would be good for representing:  
> 
>      Night
>      Death
>      The bestial side of humanity

      Hmmm... How about, say, the Ancient Werewolf Within, or some shit
down those lines? Dunno if it would fit the rest of your attributes,
tho'.

-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-
           ..`Opinions'? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
"Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
 And nothing else matters..."       -----       Metallica
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: satanism sucks!!!!!!
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:49:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.185021.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <92323.175757KAP118@psuvm.psu.edu>, KAP118@psuvm.psu.edu (Kevin Polcovich) writes:
>> To all you satanist:
>>   Why dont you wise up?  Satan is for fools.  Anybody that can swith their lett
>> ers in their name around and spell santa, I think is pretty queer.
>> Comments welcome.
>
>I told you Penn State was weird. But I forgot to mention that they don't
>teach their students basic usage of English or Usenet.
>

Yep, it's been like that for the entire 6.5 years I've been on the
net.  Apparently PSU gives accounts to every student there. 

There are intelligent posters at PSU, but they're usually drowned
out by the mass of morons there as well.


--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: jdh@math.psu.edu (Jeremy D Hall)
Subject: Re: satanism sucks!!!!!!
Organization: Penn State Department of Mathematics
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:29:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.160449.5070@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>In article <92323.175757KAP118@psuvm.psu.edu> Kevin Polcovich <KAP118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>To all you satanist:
>>  Why dont you wise up?  Satan is for fools.  Anybody that can swith their lett
>>ers in their name around and spell santa, I think is pretty queer.
>>Comments welcome.
>
>More words of wisdom from PSU.  Isn't it time for Christmas break yet?
>

HEY!  Stop flamin' on Pepsi $tate!
Must you sink to the levels of those from P$U that post?
I would hope not...

>--
>====
>Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
>mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
>"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Jeremy Hall
jdh@math.psu.edu
From: rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:53:41 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <kf0Dj6y00WC0AJBVNt@andrew.cmu.edu> aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew N. Westmeyer) writes:
>Stephen Alan Sisson's post was utter piffle.  there is plenty wron with
>the homosexual act.  First of all, I'm sure (I hope) that we all agree
>that there is nothing wrong with pleasure, even in the sexual act.  Even
>the Catholic Church has formally declared this.  The problem with the
>homosexual act is that it denies the natural aspects of sex.  I know
>that there are homosexual acts among animals, but there are other acts
>among them which clearly indicate that they are apart from morality as
>people are concerned.  So don't dodge the issue by using that appalingly
>assinine argument.  One of the purposes of sex is to propagate.  This
>cannot be done in the homosexual context.  Another aspect is the fact
>that no matter how  you bend and twist, two penises will not enter each
>other.  This denies sex as conventionally seen.  To deny reality is to
>do an act of immorality.  Accept it.
>Andrew

	Ok, first of all, I don't believe in morality.  I don't believe in
an absolute right and wrong.  I do solely what will benefit me.  I don't
kill, not because it's "wrong", but because it doesn't accomplish anything
for me and even if it did, wanton killing leads to a lawless society 
hazardous to all.  There is absolutely NO danger in the homosexual act, so
long as both participants are consenting adults in the privacy of their own
homes.
	We ARE animals, despite any imaginary attributes given to man, such
as advanced reason (just better developed brains), morality, judgement, or
the worst of all, souls.  You state that "One of the purposes of sex is to
propogate" and then go on to say that this is impossible in homosexuality.
So?  Do you believe sex is ONLY good for propagation?
	A penis can enter an anus or a mouth or a myriad of other locations.
So?  What's your point?

	An act of "immorality"?  Oooh!  That sounds like trouble!

Homosexuals and other folks with practices you don't agree with exist.
Accept it!  Deal with it!

					Raymond H. Rich
					Devil's Advocate
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher)
Subject: Re: The Process Church
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:24:22 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <By6svs.734@ddsw1.mcs.com> bes@ddsw1.mcs.com (Bes) writes:
>##rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>: While I'm busy asking all these questions, anyone care to tell me about the
>: Process Church, that poor misunderstood organization that keeps getting lumped
>: in with us evil folks?
>: 
>: --Semhaza####
>
>Again??? Did it ever ocur to you that maybe you're not being taken
>seriously? Perhaps, reflecting on your Eshin-Fun rebuttal, it is you that
>are a flake.
>
>Bes

Golly. 
Was I the only one who understood Semhazas request? 
The was _I_ understood it, she was looking for a new symbol by which to define
her beliefs, not because she just adopted a whole new belief system, but more
as a reaction to yoyos who keep giving her greif over the standard Satan 
archetype. Presumably the new archetype would embody many of the same ideas as
Satan without all the baloney that gets attatched to it by fundies looking
to fill the church coffers (and sensationalist "journalists")

-Lupo the (Happy) Butcher

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: prophesies
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:52:55 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


>>>radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
>> eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>
>>> Actually what's interesting about Jesus isn't his 
>>> homosexuality, it's his =asexuality=.  It seems to me 
>>> like he personally had no interest in sex whatsoever.
>
>>Ohhh? Then what about:
>
>>"For the time past of >our< life may suffice us to have 
>> wrought the will of the Gentiles, when >we< walked in 
>> lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, 
>> banquetings, and abominable idolatries:" [1 Peter,4 v.3]
>
>I'm not sure how this correlates that Jesus was interested in
>sex, Eshin, but I think you have misread this verse.  1 Peter 
>was written not by Jesus, but by Peter, one of the apostles 
>of Jesus.
>
>When Peter refers to "our" and "we", yes he includes himself
>in the company of those who "walked in lasciviousness, lust,
>excess of wine, ..."; but this has nothing to do with Jesus.
>If you look back to verse 4:2, you will see:
>
>"As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life 
>for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God."
>
>If you are going to use the Bible to try and prove your point
>(Wow, someone on alt.satanism doing that!) then please use
>verses that are somewhat representative of what you are trying 
>to prove.
>
>
>My love to all of you in Christ Jesus, Amen.

For the 10000th time; unless you read the original books, in their original
languages, you really have no idea what the author meant. These books are
not necessarily valid historical documents; all the documents we have that
actually date from the allged time of J. strongly disagree with the
pro-roman propaganda in the N.T. See the FAQ for refs...

(oh yeah, and look at the gnostic gospels if you want info on that Jesus 
charachters sexual habits)

And if you used your brain for other than a hatrack you would wonder how
Peter, a fisherman who most likely spoke aramaic, learned how to write in 
greek (or even aramaic for that matter). Literacy was not particularly common
in those days, especially among "blue-collar" types.

To the Shuggoths with you...
-Misquamicus















Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky)
Subject: Re: What I think
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:49:22 GMT

rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> dementia@cheshire.oxy.edu (Daniel Steven Reinker) writes:
> 
> > As for me, I support the forces of Evil. I think humanity is
> > basically no damn good. Best to wipe it off the face of the earth.
> 
> Hear, hear!
> 
> --Semhaza, Child of the Night

You guys include yourselves! Muahahahaha!

Wayne (the Anxious Puppy)
From: rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:19:49 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <Uf0l63O00aw949E31x@andrew.cmu.edu> aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew N. Westmeyer) writes:
> 
>     As for my unloving attitude as you put it, i try to love all
>people, and homosexuals are no exception.  It is difficult to do, and
>sometimes I err in my goal, but I like to think that I am trying. 
>Although I may love a person, that does not necessarily mean that I
>agree with what they are doing.  In this case, as in many others
>including many heterosexual acts, I don't agree.  But nevertheless I try
>to love.  On account of this love I try (eg, by posting to
>netnews.alt.satanism) to help those who I feel have fallen off the
>better path.  I am not however imposing religious beliefs, just a better
>(in the eyes of ultimate reality) lifestyle.  They are as always free to
>reject any of my suggestions.

	What value has your love if you throw it around without cause?
Your "help" is not a product of "love", but a product of selfishness on 
your part and a need to live in a world where everyone does what you believe
to be "right".  "Better path?"  "Better lifestyle?"  If all you have to do
is tell people what to do with their sex lives, I do not envy your meagre
existence.  In short, blow me.

						Raymond H. Rich
 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: TOS BBS?
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.190105.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>What is the Pagan/Occult Distribution Network?

 A Pagan and Magic oriented BBS network. I run a BBS on it.


Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: dementia@cheshire.oxy.edu (Daniel Steven Reinker)
Subject: Re: What I think
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.034922.27127@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
>rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> dementia@cheshire.oxy.edu (Daniel Steven Reinker) writes:
>> 
>> > As for me, I support the forces of Evil. I think humanity is
>> > basically no damn good. Best to wipe it off the face of the earth.
>> 
>> Hear, hear!
>> 
>> --Semhaza, Child of the Night
>
>You guys include yourselves! Muahahahaha!
>
Obviously.

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: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Maximus Posts
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:04:46 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov14.182813.12647@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus) writes:
> 
> Someone mentioned Maximus posts on Satanism a while back. I can't seem to find
> them... Could someone post them here, or send them to me? Ol Dave Rice always
> has nifty things to say...
> 
> -Misquamicus

Here 'tis; along with the discussion that explains why such an "off-topic"
conversation got onto alt.atheism in the first place.

Yours in Azazel,
--Semhaza

============================hack along dotted line==========================

X-NEWS: ulkyvx alt.atheism: 24960
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:34:36 EST
From: <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: The Process Church

You can find anything you really want on The Process in William Sims
Bainbridge, _Satan's Power: a Deviant Psychotherapy Cult_ (Berkeley:
U Calif Pr, 1978, and the update by Bainbridge, "Social Construction from
Within: Satan's Process," in _The Satanism Scare_ ed. Richardson, Best, &
Bromley (NY: Aldine, 1991), pp. 297-310.  Or if you prefer booga-booga
rumor to genuine ethnography, find the first printing *only* of Ed Sanders,
_The Family_ (NY: Dutton, 1971).  Sanders (the illustrious leader of The
Fugs and author of _F*** [sic!] God In The Ass_) posed as a drug-crazed
satanist in S. Calif. after the Manson murders became public and collected
everything he heard about dog-skinning and blood-drinking.  The first printing
has a lot about how The Process masterminded the Tate-LaBianca murders, but
Sanders was successfully sued for libel by The Process and he (alas) had to
take all the good parts out in the second printing.
.
Bill Ellis (wce2 @ psuvm.psu.edu)                 Editor, FOAFtale News
Penn State, Hazleton Campus                       Voice: 717-450-3026
Hazleton, PA 18201-1291                           Fax: 717-450-3182
"If I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil.  The only right is
 what is after my constitution; the only wrong what is against it."
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: royd@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roy Daniel)
Subject: God's Last Laugh
Organization: Universite de Montreal
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:49:08 GMT

Here's what I thought the other day...

Suppose God is almighty. Suppose he designed Life as a Test.

Surely, God doesn't want brainless assholes running around his Paradise, and he
would only grant entrance to the most clever minds.

So He goes around telling mortals petty things about faith and about obedience of
senseless codes. He also says that Evil will perish in the End, so that it is 
fairly stupid to join Satan's forces, since it could only lead to eternal torment.

Satan could still be Heaven's greatest Angel, and would have for mission to seek
out the Worthy ones.

Who would be the Chosen ones? Well, of course, the ones who would disagree with 
God Himself. The Ones who would question the sense of his gibberings. The truly
clever ones.

My point is: Aren't we all the truly chosen ones, fellow Unbelievers?

As somebody once put it (I think it's Faust):
"I would rather go to Hell to meet interesting, clever people, than to Heaven, 
  where everybody follows orders without questions."
(You see it is VERY freely adapted, but the core of the point is there.)



Seeya in Heaven.




Daniel Roy,
of the "Voyageurs sans Permis"
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:21:08 EST
From: <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: The Process Church
 <92324.133437WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Nov19.220033.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>

Try interlibrary loan; most librarians are willing to track down books like
this.  In PA at least, even public libraries do this for patrons without a
fee.  It's amazing what a couple of requests will get you.

If all else fails, I can at least bootleg a copy of the _Satanism Scare_
article.

Don't fail the system because it tries to fail you.

BE
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: To all christians...
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:54:45 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov18.143943.4478@spcvxb.spc.edu>, 6santiago_l@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>In my personal opinion, Ray I think You have a nasty attitude.  As I have read 
>every article about "To All Christians", you out of all people had to say nasty 
>things that you shoudn't have said.  If you don't understand what other people 
>are trying to make you see don't say anything at all.  As a matter a fact you 
>shpuld just go to another topic and mind your business.

In article <1992Nov18.051949.5155@njitgw.njit.edu>, rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich) writes:
>> In article <Uf0l63O00aw949E31x@andrew.cmu.edu> aw36+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew N. Westmeyer) writes:
>>> 
>>>     As for my unloving attitude as you put it, i try to love all
>>>people, and homosexuals are no exception.  It is difficult to do, and
>>>sometimes I err in my goal, but I like to think that I am trying. 
>>>Although I may love a person, that does not necessarily mean that I
>>>agree with what they are doing.  In this case, as in many others
>>>including many heterosexual acts, I don't agree.  But nevertheless I try
>>>to love.  On account of this love I try (eg, by posting to
>>>netnews.alt.satanism) to help those who I feel have fallen off the
>>>better path.  I am not however imposing religious beliefs, just a better
>>>(in the eyes of ultimate reality) lifestyle.  They are as always free to
>>>reject any of my suggestions.
>> 
>> 	What value has your love if you throw it around without cause?
>> Your "help" is not a product of "love", but a product of selfishness on 
>> your part and a need to live in a world where everyone does what you believe
>> to be "right".  "Better path?"  "Better lifestyle?"  If all you have to do
>> is tell people what to do with their sex lives, I do not envy your meagre
>> existence.  In short, blow me.
>> 
>> 						Raymond H. Rich

It's an excellent point. What's the matter, does it strike too close to home?
If you expect all of us to run around showing indiscriminate compassion, you
are missing the point of the newsgroup.

--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The Process Church
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:54:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <By6svs.734@ddsw1.mcs.com>, bes@ddsw1.mcs.com (Bes) writes:
> ##rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> : While I'm busy asking all these questions, anyone care to tell me about the
> : Process Church, that poor misunderstood organization that keeps getting lumped
> : in with us evil folks?
> : 
> : --Semhaza####
> 
> Again??? Did it ever ocur to you that maybe you're not being taken
> seriously? 

Maybe I'm not. Hopefully if I'm not people won't act like I'm serious.
Which they do. I've gotten good information from that request as well
(thanks humans!).

> Perhaps, reflecting on your Eshin-Fun rebuttal, it is you that
> are a flake.
> 
> Bes

Maybe I am a flake. What do you think?

--Semhaza