From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Name That Deity contest!!!
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:43:16 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <By6Mz2.4Cw@ddsw1.mcs.com>, eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>>>rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> : In article <By0yG9.2rM@ddsw1.mcs.com>, eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun the
> : loon) writes:
> : >>>rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (your god and damnator) writes:
> : 
> : 
> : There are two types of people in this world:  those who divide everything
> : into categories, and those who don't.
> : 
> : I don't think I fit either of your categories above. What am I?<<
> 
> 
> You're confused! And by the tone of your diatribe below, stupid and
> prejudiced.
> 
> You specifically stated:
> "So instead I want to try something different. I want to be something else
> besides s Satanist. etc. ad nauseum....
> 
> What are you doing if not dividing into categories??
>
> Night, Death, the beasteal side of humanity etc >are< categories.

Oh, I'm definitely dividing into categories. I love to categorize. Never
said I didn't, did I?

I included that quote because it's a common saying that I thought was
humorous, if a non-sequitur. Here, I'll throw in a few smileys so you
can tell it's a joke :) :) :)
 
I'm a categorist. Maybe you would get better responses if you didn't
jump to conclusions so quickly yourself (something I freely admit I
am guilty of).
 
>>>: Okay, answer number two:  I don't think of "perfect" and "imperfect" in the
> : way you do. Things *are*; they aren't perfect or otherwise. Perfection is
> : an artificial human standard.<<
> 
> Before you can argue what you think you have to see what in general use a
> word means. You can mean apples but the words you use are pears.

I know what perfection means. I believe you are using it in the sense
of "lacking nothing." I don't believe in such a thing. To me, a sphere
lacks a lot.
 
>>>: If I were into perfection, a sphere wouldn't strike me as particularly
>  perfect.<<
> 
> You know very little of aesthetics or mathematics. Let alone of symbolism,
> for which reason you have a problem identifying to anything symbolic.

I grasped your implication at the time that a true sphere is a mathematically
perfect object. I don't care about your understanding of symbolism.
  
>>: It has no style.<<
> 
> Again you betray a poor recognition of style or aesthetics. Perhaps the
> simplicity of a sphere eludes you, but you cannot stand in judgement that it
> has "no" style. Your preception of what is stylish does not seem to have
> much dimension.

No. I grasp the simplicity of a sphere "perfectly." The problem is that
it is too simple for me. I have simple symbols already, thank you, I wanted
a complicated one.
 
>>>: > Through a telescope envisioning the cosmos, the world of the macrocosmos,
> : > again we see that inspite of asymmetric design in some cases, the general
> : > patterns is orbicular.
> : 
> : Even when an orbit is clearly elliptical it's still a circle. Have you
> : checked out the orbit of Pluto lately?<<
> 
> If an alliptic is still a cirlcle, then did you read what I wrote above at
> all? Perhaps you should read a dictionary to furthyer your vocabulary.

I edited out the note I included at first:  "heavy sarcasm." I, knowing
well enough what I meant, didn't realize that the passage was confusing
without that note.

An ellipse is *not* a circle, let alone a sphere.
 
>>>: I agree, but "that" is not what I'm after. Besides, I was looking for
> : something more sentient than a crystal sphere. Which is why I specifically
> : requested a deity, or similar person.<<
> 
> 
> What you requested, was: 
> 
> "...I want to try something different. I want to be something else besides a
> Satanist.....I need a good symbol."

<gripe> I know now that I didn't make myself clear enough. I was looking
for a Satan-substitute, if you will. Something to *mean* Satan without
saying "Satan." Apologies for not being clearer.
  
>>>:However, the particular thing I'm 
> : thinking of does have definite characteristics. They are not argueable. I
> : listed those characteristics. Why did you not address them?<<
> 
> 
> Because your petition was contradictory and misleading. If you want to
> identify with someting other than that which you "chide" (e.g. satanism)
> then you have to go beyond that which represents that. But if on the other
> hand you are looking for the same horse with a different name then be clear
> of that idea.

I thought I was clear. I didn't "chide" Satanism, I said that I got grief
about it.
 
> You asked for "something different" you asked for "something else" and you
> asked for a "good symbol". That you enumirate a series of ideas that
> contradict your looking for something other than Satanism" is misleading.

Well, if you felt it was so misleading, why didn't you ask for a clarification?
I do that all the time myself (when I'm not busy arrogantly jumping to
conclusions ;-)
 
>>>: I'm not after light. I specifically listed "Night." <<
> 
> How can you have night without a day to define it?

I'm a dualist. I don't believe in summing up my opposites in one symbol.
That's why I have more than one "deity" (I was not asking about the other
one in that post).

> Further I explained of
> Amun Ra as a metaphor and in that metaphor you should have understood a
> irrefractable light. A "hidden" light. You obviously know very little of the
> occult principles of Satanism.

Yes, I understand the light bit. Doesn't mean I have to like it or accept it
in my interpretation of the religion.
 
>>>: But that's not what I believe in! You are asking me to *lie*!<<
> 
> No, again metaphors elude you. I really don't care what you want to believe.
> What i wrote is meant as a metaphor and a reasoning response to that
> metaphor. This, obviously, is a "suggestion" but it seems that you are on
> the defensive.

I understand metaphor. I don't feel that a glowing light bulb is the best
metaphor for darkness, at least not as far as I myself am concerned.
 
> Strange for one who asks of symbols that apply to "Wordly power", The
> bestial side of humanity, and dualism that you should be so squemish and
> moral that you should worry if you are to "lie"!

It offends me sometimes to lie. I don't see how that contradicts worldly
power, animality, or dualism. I can be someone besides a loser without 
lying. I've never seen an animal lie. What does dualism have to do with
lying?
 
>>>: I don't believe in universality.<<
> 
> Then what is night? What is world power? For that matter what is knowledge,
> reason, enlightenment?

Things. They're things. Universality would have to include the day as well
as the night, innosence (sp?) as well as knowledge, and so on.
 
>>> I'm a dualist.<<
> 
> Then stick to satanism. Or better yet to avoid getting upset go to the
> library and research mythologies and think at your own expense for a
> change.

I think at my own expense plenty. I asked because I thought others might
offer a different perspective on my question, for example suggesting a
legend that I never would have thought of as relating if I had simply read
it. After all, the point of Usenet is to share ideas and perspectives, and
get something we can't get from a book.

>>>: I don't *WANT* to represent
> : everything in one symbol.<<
> 
> That's no problem. There aqre thousands upon thousands of symbols you can
> choose from. I simply implied one that was the most awsome, and seldom
> understood. In fact, it was a symbol of the Persian clergy of ancient times
> from where the word Magi comes from and their religion is considered
> "Dualism" In fact they are the source where the idea of the god of light
> have a great battle and popularized by Milton in "Paradise Lost".

Yeh, I know there are thousands of symbols, I just couldn't think of one
that fit the bill. Yours didn't cut it, it didn't even consider the parameters
I'd listed. I know you consider it "awesome" but I wasn't asking for an
"ultimate" symbol.
 
>>>: Furthermore, I don't care for the implication that
> : since I seek to quantify my beliefs in human terms, then I must be
> : superstitious. <<
> 
> I used the term superstitious because it is a condition of one believing in
> something without knowing the "why" but still do it anyway. Considering your
> outburst it seems to have described your frame of mind..and questions..

?Do tell.
 
>>>: I desire to find a symbol to describe a definite set of characteristics. I
> : listed those characteristics. If I wanted a universal code, I'd have picked
> : a circle long ago. Please don't identify what you want with what I want.<<
> 
> I never stated that I "knew what you wanted" to begin with. I don't believe
> you know that yourself. I mere suggested by the air of question a suggestion
> of possibly many that seemed most apt at that moment.

I have an idea what I wanted. You looked at my question, and started giving
a spiel that was really quite lovely, but didn't relate. You redefined what
I wanted. At least that is how I see it.
 
>>>: Yeesh. If someone is genuinely interested and listens to my answers, I'd 
> : rather stay around and talk with them. If they don't (which is the case most
> : of the time) I wouldn't have gotten so far in the first place.<<
> 
> Unfortunately I made the mistake of taking you seriously. By your response
> it is obvious you really don't care what anybody else thinks or answer your
> muddled confused "thinking outloud".

What's this sudden obsession with my being not serious? What did I say?
I am really at a loss, I can't see what I did wrong.
 
>>>: Sheesh. Now I understand why everyone considers you a flake.<<
> 
> Is this an omniscient awareness or just a personal prejudice? Is this e-mail
> gossip or just purely envious despotism? I have been called many things but
> it seems I surpass my accusers and in the end, they usually prove to be
> whatever derrogatory adjective they use for me a quality of their own
> reflection.

Ha. you've got me there, at least halfway. Sure, I sunk down to a pretty 
"low" level. I'm happy about it, I glory in it. I think I did the right
thing. That doesn't mean you have surpassed me, as you put it. You're
right down here with me. The only difference is you think it is a station
below you.

And yes, I have probably complained about people being as juvenile as I
am being right now. Who cares?
 
>>> This is
> : proselytizing, plain and simple.<<
> 
> Wrong again. Sabaeanism does not believe in proselytizing.

Excuse me but that's exactly what I thought you were doing. You could
have fooled me.

> Further you
> haven't got the stamina to ever be a "sabaean".

I don't think that relates.
 
>>>: I posted on alt.satanism giving a plain and
> : simple description of what I was looking for. I never said I wanted to 
> : convert to an existing religion, did I?<<
> 
> You posted on alt.satanism  claiming that you wanted to be "something else
> besides a Satanist." You posted on alt. Satanism caliming that you "want to
> try something different".
> Just what the Hell are you talking about idiot? If you do not know then
> spare us the bandwith.

As I said in another post, I thought it would be possible to read between
the lines. I was wrong. I screwed up by not articulating my desires more
clearly.

I know what I'm talking about. I am talking about a desire of mine. You
are the one more guilty of "wasting bandwidth" by jumping to a conclusion
regarding a question that you yourself have described as unclear, instead
of asking what I meant.
 
>>>: If you want to extoll the virtues of your religion, keep it in alt.sabeaen
> : where it belongs, and leave us out of it.<<
> 
> You conceited insect. ;-) You have no idea what I believe in. If you mistook
> what I wrote as a confession of my "soul" then you are as bigoted as the
> Christians you bitch about in your dissertation.

I make it a habit of assuming, that if someone talks about a religion in
the manner that you did, that they are a member. If they say, no, that's 
incorrect, well that's fine by me, but why are they misrepresenting
themselves and complaining about the resulting confusion?
 
> And if you want to be "something else besides a satanist" what do >you< mean
> by "leave *us* out of it?" Suddenly you are speaking for all Satanists?
> I was not aware that you had been elected as the infernal messiah of this
> newsgroup?

Well, I was nominated for Satan ;-) 
I don't think I'm the infernal messiah of alt.satanism. I seek to inform
people when they post something I perceive as irrelevant to the topic. I'll
do it in other newsgroups too, if I see the need. If you can justify your
Sabaean posts here, then fine. Otherwise I'll keep knocking you as long as
I feel like it. And it is your right to come here and post about noodles
if you want, but I'll do the same thing, since it's no more relevant.
  
> If you want to extall the virtues of your opinions then I suggest you start
> by being coherant and a little lest hypocritical and neurotic.
> 
> Perhaps you should not write in any newsgroup at all, till at least you get
> your act together and give Satanism a bad name ranting like a fanatical
> christian fool.

No, I do not intend to take you up on your suggestion. For all my ranting,
I can be a lot more calm and informative when I feel the need. Which is most
of the time.
 
>>>: 
> : --Semhaza (The Antichrist)<<
> 
> You flatter yourself to "CATEGORIZE" (e.g. the antichrist) your
> name with such worthy a title.
> 
> 
> Eshin-Fun

Great Cthulhu, is that the worst insult you could come up with to finish
off your post? I have indicated that I *do* categorize, so that's 
completely off the wall.

I seem to be fueling a great many flames in this newsgroup right now.
At least it ought to be appropriate; gives one a good sampling of the
Xian Hell :)

--Semhaza 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism