Which is important...
Logre
Sabaeanisma nd the people who created Sabaeanism. There have been
biblical arguments, archeological and personal arguements goping back
and forth.
It seems to me the real question is: does the Sabaean philosophy work?
If yes, then, does the fact that no historical single document listing
tenants and rules matter. If no, why does Sabaeanism not work? Is that
a failure of the past or the failure of the present.
MY ANSWER
Yes, Sabaean Philosophy has worked and is working for me. I have
adopted the Sabaean Philosophy for about three years. It has worked for
me by allowing me to grow as a person, to change my life and
circumstances and make them better. I am far from perfect and have a
long way to go. But, That is also just fine as that is the whole point
of incarnation, to grow and learn.
Does the fact that the historical people called Sabaeans may have or may
have not created the Sabaean Philosophy or even have exist impact
today's Sabaeanism. In my opinion. Nope. In fact, it shows the
strength and gropwth inherent in the ancient sabaean philosophy. Rather
than being a stagnant set of commands, its a dynamic, pragmatic
philosophy. It is not giving rules, but endowing a process of thinking
and analyzing any and all issues. That is what gives Sabaeanism its
strength because it evolevs the person based on that person instead of
creating and artificial society with hard and fast rules, unchanging and
unforgiving.
So, those are my thoughts...
Logre
This ain't Logre
>The last few weeks posts revolve around finding the begining of
>Sabaeanisma nd the people who created Sabaeanism. There have been
>biblical arguments, archeological and personal arguements goping back
>and forth.
>
>It seems to me the real question is: does the Sabaean philosophy work?
>If yes, then, does the fact that no historical single document listing
>tenants and rules matter. If no, why does Sabaeanism not work? Is that
>a failure of the past or the failure of the present.
In order to postulate whether or not something "works" one must be able to
present scientific conclusions of fact.
What you presented is known as "anecdotal evidence". It has a value of zero
when reported by an outsider. When reported by an interested party who has
emotional and psychological ties to the data being reported, as well as a
desire to justify their own behavior, it actually has a negative value.
If you are, for example, called to give vast sums of money to an
organization to "help" you, then of course you should be expected to report
that it did in fact "help".
To do otherwise would be to admit to yourself, as well as the world at
large, that you basically flushed the money down the toilet - or had it
extorted from you. Either would be admitting a personal weakness and poor
decision on your part.
It is unrealistic to expect you to make such an admission, and therefore
your "report" has no value.
That is, absent concrete, verifyable and objective data, your report is
worthless.
In fact it is exactly the same kind of report as one would expect from a
Christian who is "witnessing" - that is attempting to persuade and convert
others.
For that is, precisely, what you are attempting to do here.
I recall not all that long ago back in this group someone who claimed to be
an authority on this "scam", er, "philosophy", said that there was no
desire, need, or other want to "witness", "convert", or "persuade". That
in fact following this philosophy was its own reward, and that Sabaeans in
fact stood AGAINST such prosyletization as part and parcel of monotheistic
cults.
Yet that is precisely what you have done here - witness to the world.
You, and the others who proclaim this, are nothing other than hypocrites of
the highest order. You lay claim to some great heritage (the veracity of
which has been thoroughly debunked at this point) when in fact "Sabaeanism"
is just another name for "Santeria" syncretized with pagan rituals for the
seasons.
In that vein it maintains the ability to be value-neutral, for it has no
absolute moral authority or code. It therefore, as a philosophy, can
rationalize anything - up to and including fearmongering, playing on
people's psychological weaknesses, mental control, financial desecration
and even threats, vulgarity and lawlessness.
The last three have been prominently displayed in the past years right
here in this group by some of this "philosophy's" practitioners.
Your answer belies a deficit common to so-called "new age" religious and
philosophical practices. The lie is common - there's nothing "new" about
them at all.
These practices eschew any responsibility for their own actions, and any
authority derived from creation and the natural order of the universe.
In that they are morally and ethically bankrupt.
Morals, ethics and values are not relativistic. They are absolute. To
pretend otherwise is to attempt to defend the indefensible. The moral
person says that what President Clinton did was wrong - not because he
offended God, but because he broke an oath taken before God.
The relativist says that if Clinton wasn't "getting enough" from his wife,
he had just cause to go elsewhere and have Lewinski give him a hummer under
the desk.
This is the age-old philosophy of "do unto others then run like hell before
anyone catches you", or, as is more commonly stated, "if someone fucks with
me I'll fuck with 20 other people to teach 'em not to do that."
All in all it boils down to rationalization for behavior and belief that has
no basis in reality - and no place in civilized society.
You do not need to believe in God - any God - to be a civilized individual.
But you do need to accept reality, not attempt to bribe divinity to bend
reality to your will.
You do need to have an absolute moral and ethical code by which you live
your life, be comfortable with it, and be willing to defend it.
You do need to have honor and integrity - two words which are not measured
by fealty to a "godparent" or "philosophy". In fact, it is the *definition*
of those words that DEMANDS that you do no such thing when those individuals
commit acts that you find reprehensible and morally bankrupt.
When the principles of what you call "Sabaeanism" - just another word stolen
from the annals of time - can be elucidated and fit into these realities
of civilization, come back and discuss how that can be done - and how a
practice that, as it contains Santeria, can square that with the death
of animals for personal, vengeful means along with all the other trappings
of "effort" - including the threats and vulgarities that I've read here
over the last several years.
We'll be waiting.
-- The Anti-Logre
RBCF Mark
What is the Sabaean philosophy? Is it an actual organization?
Mark A. Foster
ow...@sociologist.com
RBCF Mark (on AOL only)
Ba'al
Ba'al
wrote:
>
>What you presented is known as "anecdotal evidence". It has a value of zero
>when reported by an outsider. When reported by an interested party who has
>emotional and psychological ties to the data being reported, as well as a
>desire to justify their own behavior, it actually has a negative value.
And your rebbuttle has the value of less than zero. Who are you to
place yourself as an authority ??
>
>If you are, for example, called to give vast sums of money to an
>organization to "help" you, then of course you should be expected to report
>that it did in fact "help".
>
>To do otherwise would be to admit to yourself, as well as the world at
>large, that you basically flushed the money down the toilet - or had it
>extorted from you. Either would be admitting a personal weakness and poor
>decision on your part.
You betray yourself you frustrated fag. with this mercinary diatribe
that you always complain??
>
>It is unrealistic to expect you to make such an admission, and therefore
>your "report" has no value.
>
Nor does your complaint! Me thinks the dame protests too much! as
Shakespere would say....
>That is, absent concrete, verifyable and objective data, your report is
>worthless.
>
And your condemnation useless as it is obvious you are bius and
contrary to anything here that is for a support on sabaeanism.
>
>I recall not all that long ago back in this group someone who claimed to be
>an authority on this "scam", er, "philosophy", said that there was no
>desire, need, or other want to "witness", "convert", or "persuade". That
>in fact following this philosophy was its own reward, and that Sabaeans in
>fact stood AGAINST such prosyletization as part and parcel of monotheistic
>cults.
>
>Yet that is precisely what you have done here - witness to the world.
and yet greater for the world towitness is your ignorant stupidity of
what you talk about that is incomplete or didn't you pay your john
enough to tell you everything?
>
>You, and the others who proclaim this, are nothing other than hypocrites of
>the highest order.
You are as much a hypoocrite as all those other you finger.
>These practices eschew any responsibility for their own actions, and any
>authority derived from creation and the natural order of the universe.
>
>In that they are morally and ethically bankrupt.
As much as you are??? nothing is that degraded!
>
>You do need to have honor and integrity - two words which are not measured
>by fealty to a "godparent" or "philosophy". In fact, it is the *definition*
>of those words that DEMANDS that you do no such thing when those individuals
>commit acts that you find reprehensible and morally bankrupt
yet you extall "Willie Ramos" whose mother found his father in
bed..with another man , or so says Okikilo of Indiana... and several
santeros claim that he is a repentant fag who now is gun ho in bad
mouthing anyone else !
.
>
>When the principles of what you call "Sabaeanism" - just another word stolen
>from the annals of time -
What religion is without blemish? besides do YOU know what Sabaeanism
is??? I think not. You hardly have read philosophy to claim such lofty
ideals. You ignorant pervert! go back to your fantasies they are more
real than all the manure you spew here time after time because you
have nothing to do except write for no reason at all saying nothing
being nothing amounting to a transparent cellophane jerk that thinks
he knows it all but is fristrated that everyone around him has left
him or is suing for one reason or another...LOL OL LOL LOL
And this isn't Ba'al or the Ba'al youthink it is....LOL LOL LOL
anti...@muts.nuts.not
Ba'al <Ner...@iname.com> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 1999 15:14:09 GMT, Lo...@megs.nuts.net (This ain't Logre)
>wrote:
>>
>>when reported by an outsider. When reported by an interested party who has
>>emotional and psychological ties to the data being reported, as well as a
>>desire to justify their own behavior, it actually has a negative value.
>
>place yourself as an authority ??
I thought people here were discussing ideas?
As a new observer, is not dissent part of discussion?
>>If you are, for example, called to give vast sums of money to an
>>organization to "help" you, then of course you should be expected to report
>>that it did in fact "help".
>>
>You betray yourself you frustrated fag. with this mercinary diatribe
>that you always complain??
Ad-hominen. Very encouraging. Are you one of these so-called "Sabaeans"?
I'll have to keep in mind that one of the philosophical "traits" of such
people is that they call names.
Kinda like what you'd expect on the playground with a bunch of 5-year olds.
Is this indicative of your cognitive abilities in general?
>>That is, absent concrete, verifyable and objective data, your report is
>>worthless.
>>
>And your condemnation useless as it is obvious you are bius and
>contrary to anything here that is for a support on sabaeanism.
"bius"? That's an interesting word.
So is your grammer. Ok, we've discovered that cognition is not a part of
this claimed "philosophical" lineage.
>>Yet that is precisely what you have done here - witness to the world.
>
>and yet greater for the world towitness is your ignorant stupidity of
>what you talk about that is incomplete or didn't you pay your john
>enough to tell you everything?
More ad-hominen and personal attacks. Why this is impressive! You did
manage to get one whole screen worth of text out without one. But, sadly,
it was mostly quoted.
>>These practices eschew any responsibility for their own actions, and any
>>authority derived from creation and the natural order of the universe.
>>
>>In that they are morally and ethically bankrupt.
>
>As much as you are??? nothing is that degraded!
Yet another example...
My my, shall we keep count?
>>You do need to have honor and integrity - two words which are not measured
>>by fealty to a "godparent" or "philosophy". In fact, it is the *definition*
>>of those words that DEMANDS that you do no such thing when those individuals
>>commit acts that you find reprehensible and morally bankrupt
>
>yet you extall "Willie Ramos" whose mother found his father in
>bed.. with another man
Who is "Willie Ramos"? And why do you slur his family? So your ad-hominen
is not limited to those who you are discussing a matter with; you're content
to go spray hatred and bigotry all over creation, with little regard for who
it may land on.
> , or so says Okikilo of Indiana... and several
>santeros claim that he is a repentant fag who now is gun ho in bad
>mouthing anyone else !
At least two more personal slurs and attacks here against what appear to be
two more people. What's an "Okikilo"? Is that some kind of oracle sacred
to your "philosophy" or something?
>What religion is without blemish? besides do YOU know what Sabaeanism
>is??? I think not. You hardly have read philosophy to claim such lofty
>ideals. You ignorant pervert! go back to your fantasies they are more
>real than all the manure you spew here time after time because you
>have nothing to do except write for no reason at all saying nothing
>being nothing amounting to a transparent cellophane jerk that thinks
>he knows it all but is fristrated that everyone around him has left
>him or is suing for one reason or another...LOL OL LOL LOL
Well let's see. Now here's an accusation you could back up (as opposed
to just being horse-hockey).
Who's being sued, by whom, and for what?
Or was that just another cheap ad-hominen attack (and a lie besides)?
>And this isn't Ba'al or the Ba'al youthink it is....LOL LOL LOL
Does it matter?
It appears you are either a follower of, a student of, or "in charge"
somehow of this "philosophy".
You've given the world a whole lot more insight into just how this
"philosophy" works than anyone could hope to.
The only "bad light" you have to worry about with regards to this practice
is that which you cast yourself.
Thanks for the overview of "Sabaeanism" from the standpoint of exactly what
one could expect from its "converts" or "philosophers".
-- Not-Ba'al
Odun
RBCF Mark wrote:
Sabaean Philosophy is a philosophy It is explained in Landseer's book
"Sabaean Researches" London 1823 Chwolson discusses Sabean Beliefs in
SSaber und Ssabismus 1965 printing.
bus...@odun.is.caught
And here we find several truths....
Odun and "Ba'al" are VERY likely to be the same person, posting through
two different newsreaders on the same computer (that is, by creating an
"alter-ego" on the same machine).
Evidence:
From: Ner...@iname.com (Ba'al)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Message-ID: <3720d241...@News.megsinet.net>
Lines: 97
Date: Fri Apr 23 15:21:27 CDT 1999
X-Trace: news.megsinet.net 924898910 216.214.146.3 (Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:21:50
+ CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:21:50 CDT
-------
From: Odun <r...@megsinet.net>
Message-ID: <3720E882...@megsinet.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 17
Date: Fri Apr 23 16:39:14 CDT 1999
X-Trace: news.megsinet.net 924903578 216.214.146.3 (Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:39:38
+ CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:39:38 CDT
--------------
Now, this alone (the congruence of the posting IP addresses) is not
conclusive on its own, although its strongly suggestive.
But Megsinet is a large Chicago area ISP that was recently acquired, and
has known hardware that they brag about a lot (ASCEND equipment). The two
posts are about an hour apart, and both bear the same posting IP address
(oops).
The IP address in the trace is:
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> -x
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; 3.146.214.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
3.146.214.216.in-addr.arpa. 1D IN PTR na-216-214-146-3.megsinet.net.
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
146.214.216.in-addr.arpa. 1w4d13h46m39s IN NS ns1.megsinet.net.
146.214.216.in-addr.arpa. 1w4d13h46m39s IN NS ns2.megsinet.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.megsinet.net. 6M IN A 208.150.60.2
ns2.megsinet.net. 6M IN A 208.133.80.2
A dial-up port.
The device that terminated that call is:
8 core1-atm0-0.225ohio.megsinet.net (198.32.130.76) 60.178 ms 57.951 ms 58.038 ms
9 core1-H2-1.focal-chi.megsinet.net (208.133.64.42) 71.431 ms 59.768 ms 58.557 ms
10 max3.focal-chi.megsinet.net (208.150.59.26) 59.147 ms 58.106 ms 58.798 ms
11 na-216-214-146-1.megsinet.net (216.214.146.1) 91.349 ms 91.970 ms 86.184 ms
12 na-216-214-146-3.megsinet.net (216.214.146.3) 91.691 ms 86.520 ms 88.710 ms
This trace fragment tells us a few rather important things.
1. The device in question at Megs is an ASCEND Max (they were kind
enough to name it for us). This means that it is NOT MegsInet's
primary TNT access server - there is a very high probability that
this is an ISDN line just from the trunking alone.
2. The last long-haul connection is hop 10, on a FOCAL trunk (thanks
Megs). That's a competitive local phone company with "virtual"
service, meaning that the dial pool is probably several hundred
lines in "depth".
3. There's a decent probability that this is an ISDN connection routed
locally with a netblock assigned. Addresses .1 through .8 go through
hop 11 and terminate on hop 12, and the times are consistent with
hop 11 being to customer equipment and hop 12 being an Ethernet in
the customer's building.
Conclusion:
This is almost certainly a FIXED ADDRESS account with a router
behind it. There is approximately 30ms in delay between Megs and
the local user; this is characteristic of an ISDN line.
The odds that this is a fixed assignment to an ISDN customer, owning
a router, are overwhelming. Virtually every ISDN router (not terminal
adapter) on the planet requires a fixed address to operate, and a
fixed netblock size. That the terminal address is routed by a
remote device is definitively proven by the above trace, and evidence
the .1 through .8 addresses (characteristic of a /29 address block,
typical of ISDN service) is routed to the same location and caller
is strong.
Even if its NOT a fixed address ISDN customer, the odds of getting
the same IP address assignment on two successive calls more than
an hour apart, from two different user IDs, from two different
locations in an ISPs service area, are astronomical.
That two different callers would dial in with a DYNAMIC netblock
account, get the *same* netblock, and that both would be using the
same offset machine *into* the netblock? Astronomical as well.
What does all this mean?
This is very strong evidence that Odun and Ba'al are the same person, and
that the foul diatribe an hour prior to Odun's post actually came from the
same machine who posted the above "reference".
There further is strong evidence that this individual hid themselves to
avoid being identified as the author of that foul, putrescent screed.
Unfortunately for our would-be-cloaker that bid didn't succeed.
Thanks Odun for a charming introduction to the quality of cognitive
resource, intellectual prowess, and general ethical bent of a person who,
according to "Drawing Down the Moon" (Margot Adler), is the leader -
the putative head - of the "Sabaean" Philosophy.
That is, if in fact the "guess" above is correct.
Oh, and you still don't know with any certainty which of the several tens
of thousands of people posting on alt.net I might be.
(BTW, just to keep you interested, I'm on the east coast. Pretty simple to
figure out from the above trace's times, but I thought I'd just go ahead and
tell you, saving you the use of the few brain cells you might have left
functioning.
:-)
Toodles.
-- 'Tis fun when people trip over their own keyboard
Ba'al
>And here we find several truths....
>
>Odun and "Ba'al" are VERY likely to be the same person, posting through
>two different newsreaders on the same computer (that is, by creating an
>"alter-ego" on the same machine).
>
Boy you must have nothing better to do than to hack your trash out!
>
>Conclusion:
>
>>
>There further is strong evidence that this individual hid themselves to
>avoid being identified as the author of that foul, putrescent screed.
>Unfortunately for our would-be-cloaker that bid didn't succeed.
>
>Thanks Odun for a charming introduction to the quality of cognitive
>resource, intellectual prowess, and general ethical bent of a person who,
>according to "Drawing Down the Moon" (Margot Adler), is the leader -
>the putative head - of the "Sabaean" Philosophy.
Boy! you must have a hard on for this odun you seem to do nothing but
talk about him...Did he rub your belly??? LOL LOL
>
>That is, if in fact the "guess" above is correct.
>
>Oh, and you still don't know with any certainty which of the several tens
>of thousands of people posting on alt.net I might be.
Your posts are transparent dick head You always drum on the same tune!
You "Give" yourself away!!!
>
>
>Toodles.
A typical fag reply!
>
>-- 'Tis fun when people trip over their own keyboard
You are really stupid. YOu fell for the obvious trap! You opened your
big mouth! And that's something you can't keep closed! ,From a good
source I've heard that this is your big problem.......be careful what
you put in your mouth LOL LOL LOL LOL
ba...@not.megs.nut
Ba'al <Ner...@iname.com> wrote:
>hard on
>dick head
>fag
Such stunning command of the English language.
Truly inspiring prose.
You're "content" is purile and pre-pubescent.
That's being kind.
Again, this eminates from the same IP address as "Odun"'s posting.
My, my, my.
Your anger at getting caught must really be burning you up. May I
recommend a call to 1-800-SEND-MEN-IN-WHITE-COATS? Or perhaps a call
to 1-800-POP-A-VEIN-AND-DIE-OF-THE-ANNURISM is in order? I hear that
anger-induced coronaries are in season this time of year.
This stunning content coming from a self-proclaimed "Sabaean philosopher" -
two in one day - is, well, astounding. It certainly puts an entirely new
definition on "philosophy"! Quick! Call Websters!
Or perhaps Ripley's "Believe It Or Not" would be a better fit.
If this is an example of what "Sabaeans" would expect someone who is
interested in, follows, or questions this "philosophy" to endure, well,
I think we can come up with a more appropriate term than "philosophy"
for what this truly represents.
Plato is turning over in his grave at the gross abuse of the word
he popularized and that you have served upon the people in this newsgroup.
I'll leave you to your own petty self-hatred and your "forum"; you've
certainly displayed more than enough "truth" about this so-called
"philosophy" with no help at all.
(BTW, it is well-known among therapists that those who commonly use
homophobic slurs like "fag" are usually homosexuals deeply in the
closet - closeted about their own orientation - or people who are
openly gay and unhappy about their chosen lifestyle. Something
for you to think about.)
vc...@hotmail.com
Boy, you must have a lot of time on your hands!!! Look at what time you
posted this last reply. That would be almost midnight on the east coast.
Hey, can you tell me where I'm posting from?
Baal, not baal, not logre, conan: You've got a bad case of multiple
personality disorder yourself. But I have sat back and read your mad ravings
far too long. Though I never intended to post anything in this newsgroup I
must reply to you.
I wish you could be the true outsider that I am and just see how insane some
of your ranting is. What do you have against this group of people? Have
they done some harm to you personally? Why do you take snips of their posts
and interpret them out of context? I have gone back and read many of the
posts you make mention of and see no threats or intimidation. True some have
not used the best judgement when posting replies to you and another
individual but all seem perfectly harmless otherwise. What religion does not
ask for money? Do you know of one? And why do you hide behind their names
and those in(s)ane emails addresses? What are you afraid of?
I originally subscribed to this newsgroup to learn something about the
Sabaean philosophy. All I have learned thus far is that you hide behind the
premise that newsgroups are open for discussion and debate but have used poor
judgement in how you discuss and debate the topic. You want nothing more
than to provoke the Sabaeans. Sadly, you have succeeded.
To the Sabaeans who have let this person get a rise out of them, it's sad that
you could not ignore these posts as Odun has done. I take a snip from a post
dated 8/4/97 by r...@megsinet.net:
"However many Sabaeans avoid the usual preoccupation of argument that
many other groups incessantly rely on.
we tend to favor brevity and seldom insist on argument when one is
intellectually satisfied...or dissapointed"
You guys obviously missed that one. I would have thought that part of your
philosophy would be to show more patience to those less fortunate in the
intellect area. All you have done is given him satisfaction in what he
is doing and he will continue to do so unless you refuse to give his posts any
credence with your replies.
One thing we should do is decide on a handle for this poor soul. Maybe we
could hold a contest. Remember, use good judgement, find him a fitting name,
no slang terms please. He has already shown distaste for "fag".
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
vcb-ex...@who.is.this
>
>Boy, you must have a lot of time on your hands!!! Look at what time you
>posted this last reply. That would be almost midnight on the east coast.
>Hey, can you tell me where I'm posting from?
Does it matter?
If it does, sure. The provider where this post originated from is:
Visionary Comunications (NETBLK-UU-208-238-144)
301 S. Douglas Hwy
Gillette, WY 82716
The address range your post originated from was delegated by UUNET
(a division of MCI Worldcom).
Does this prove you are there? No. But its fairly good evidence, unless
that provider has horrible security (and they might - I'm not going to
bother trying to investigate that, as I wouldn't know how)
>I wish you could be the true outsider that I am and just see how insane some
>of your ranting is. What do you have against this group of people? Have
>they done some harm to you personally? Why do you take snips of their posts
>and interpret them out of context?
What is "out of context" about foul language? It is the last bastion of the
person with no argument to make.
> I have gone back and read many of the
>posts you make mention of and see no threats or intimidation.
Really? Go look up a posting by one "Bob Flukowski" from over a year ago.
There were very explicit threats made in that posting.
Likewise, the foul language and what is commonly known as "poor impulse
control" seems to run rampant through the people who claim to be adherents
of this "religion". We've been treated to several prime examples in the
last few days and weeks, right here - the history of this activity
literally goes back years.
Its the pattern of behavior - not one incident - that makes for an issue.
>What religion does not
>ask for money?
There is a huge difference between passing the hat - and publishing a budget
and expenditures - both things that legitimate religions do (so you know
not only how much was taken in, but where it was spent) and the Santerian
practice of using oracles to "prescribe" fixes for people who come with
some complaint or another - nearly all of which involve significant sums
of money to be paid to some "priest".
I know of not one Santerian organization that publishes their budget
and operating expenses. Not one. Nor do I know of any that are active
in humanitarian causes (the Christian organizations put a LOT of effort
in that direction, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other
humanitarian concerns).
When challenged, the "Santerians" and "Sabaeans" (the same game in a
different cloak) have both refused to publish this information.
Why?
A legitimate religion has nothing to fear from allowing people to know
where they obtain their funding, and how its spent.
> And why do you hide behind their names
>and those in(s)ane emails addresses? What are you afraid of?
Go find the "Flukowski" post. Then tell me why anyone else would be willing
to expose themselves to blatant threats like that - especially from people
who exhibit poor enough impulse control, as documented through the foul
language used here by these folks, that said individuals might actually
try to make good on those threats with a bit of personal action.
If anonymous posting or "cloaking" has a valid purpose on the Internet,
this is it.
I do not desire to be the next recipient of a death threat against myself
or my family, whether direct or thinly veiled.
Seeing one directed against some person who was apparently unhappy with
these folks' practices was enough, thank you very much.
>I originally subscribed to this newsgroup to learn something about the
>Sabaean philosophy.
This isn't a philosophy newsgroup. Its a "religion" newsgroup.
>You want nothing more
>than to provoke the Sabaeans. Sadly, you have succeeded.
There are no Sabaeans in the historical context. They're all dead.
The claim otherwise is like claiming that modern-day Wicca is an authentic
rejoinder of the Celtic practices. That's claptrap too. A few people,
looking for a means to "latch on" to ancient practices as a way of
validating what they were doing, *called* themselves Wiccans and presented
themselves as a modern version of the old practices. It stuck.
But its not true, any more than this group is in any way tied to the old
"Sabaeans".
Its a transparent lie, and a convenient label grabbed out of thin air to
attempt to justify a set of practices which would otherwise have no name
and little attraction to anyone.
This has never been refuted - nor any actual evidence presented that its
not factual - here or elsewhere.
Claiming to be something does not make one so.
>To the Sabaeans who have let this person get a rise out of them, it's sad that
>you could not ignore these posts as Odun has done.
The IP traces that were posted last night are solid evidence that "Odun"
has done no such thing.
That "rom" and "Baal" posted from the same IP address, less than an hour
apart, twice last evening, is solidly established.
That this individual is almost certainly behind a routed ISDN connection to
the same provider is also substantiated by the traces that were posted last
night.
I didn't post those traces, but I know how to read them.
They are solid.
If you think not, ask an Internet expert of your own choosing what that
individual thinks they demonstrate. Form your own opinion. Don't trust
a random one from this or any other newsgroup.
Would your opinion of this "religion" change if its self-declared "head" -
Odun - was in fact "Baal"? If the same person who you quoted from 1997 is
the self-same person with that documented and demonstrated foul mouth and
non-existent impulse control? If that same person was deliberately trying
to cloak themself so that they could pretend to be someone else while
launching those foul-mouthed, purile personal attacks?
You should ask an Internet expert of your own choosing what he or she thinks
of those traces - then form your own opinion about what has really been going
on here.
>You guys obviously missed that one.
Actually, "Rom" appears to have, from the messages in this group, a history
of failing to follow his very own advice - except when it suits him.
>One thing we should do is decide on a handle for this poor soul.
Oh boy - more ad-hominen and projection.
Not that I'm really surprised.
Mike Gleason
that English may not be Odun's birth language, and consequently his syntax,
grammar, and methods of expression may not conform to "standard English"
usages.
If you find what Odun (and others) have to say offensive, stop reading this
newsgroup. I don't think you are being forced to read it. Let those of us
who are Sabaeans have some peace and quiet. If I want attacks and smears,
there are plenty of other newsgroups for me to read (alt.pagan comes to
mind, as do several others).
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But we are also entitled to
ours. I am not interested in attacking your belief system (whatever it may
be). I would be interested in knowing what it is, and how much PERSONAL
knowledge you have of Sabaeanism, so that I could understand your hostility
to our beliefs.
Feel free to e-mail me personally, or respond to the group.
Mike Gleason
gle...@star.net
ba...@not.megs.nut wrote in message <7frepk$edl$0...@dosa.alt.net>...
>In article <37212bae...@News.megsinet.net>,
>Ba'al <Ner...@iname.com> wrote:
<snipped>
Logre
Ba'al wrote: <pointless trash>
I posted my question and my view for simple discussion. No more and no less. I
admit to enjoy shaking up the nervous...
Anecdotal? No, I am talking directly about myself and what has happened to me in
adopting a new philosophy. Anecdotal would be me reporting what others have said
has occured. Philosophy is not a tangible thing; it does not produce, it in itself
cannot create. Rather, it is an idea a way of thinking. Therefore, empirical
evidence will be scant and needless. The point of most philosophies is not the
production of goods.
As too exchange of large sums of money...the Electric Company has taken more of my
cash than the Sabaean Philosophy has ever asked of me. Seems to me someone is
bitter over the fact that they have little apptitude in appreciating the True
Value(see Plato) of a thing in terms of their own being.
Anyway, I amlooking forward to some positive responses
As Ever,
Logre
ba...@megs.nets.nut
>
>
>Ba'al wrote: <pointless trash>
>
>I posted my question and my view for simple discussion. No more and no less. I
>admit to enjoy shaking up the nervous...
>
>Anecdotal? No, I am talking directly about myself and what has happened to me in
>adopting a new philosophy.
Anecdotal evidence is that is related as a story or otherwise claimed to be
connected to the putative cause, without any hard scientific evidence to back
it up.
If its a third-party report its known as *hearsay* as well as being anecdotal.
Anecdotes are interesting, but not probative or in any other way reliable.
Among the various classes of information, self-reported anecdotes are the
least reliable of all, since the person doing the reporting has a vested
interest in relating a story that justifies their actions. This is a basic
psychological premise and fact, and is found almost universally among people
who adopt a particular philosophical or religious practice - whether or not
it really *has* produced benefit on an objective level.
Sociologists go to a LOT of trouble to weed out the influence and bias that
this inevitably places into any study. The best way to do so is called a
"longitudinal" study; they are expensive (due to the intervention and
monitoring required, require lots (hundreds or even thousands) of subjects,
and do a reasonable job of controlling for self-reporting bias.
A person, or even a hundred persons, saying that "this philosophy did this
or that for me" is meaningless. It may be worse than meaningless, in that
by definition it will mislead those who hear it. I'm quite sure that most
of the people in David Koresh's band in Waco thought his "philosophy" was
great for them too - at least up to the point that they knew they were
going to die as a consequence.
The folks in California last year were also reporting incredibly positive
experiences and transformations in their lives as a result of their
"philosophy".
Today they are all dead.
>Philosophy is not a tangible thing; it does not produce, it in itself
>cannot create.
Ah, but philosophy can either create tangible good or harm to a person,
or it may do absolutely nothing of substance. However, without the
science of independant sociological study there is no way to know, and
self-reporting will, in virtually every instance, mislead others.
>The point of most philosophies is not the
>production of goods.
Not relavent to whether it harms or helps the followers of same.
>As too exchange of large sums of money...the Electric Company has taken more of my
>cash than the Sabaean Philosophy has ever asked of me. Seems to me someone is
>bitter over the fact that they have little apptitude in appreciating the True
>Value(see Plato) of a thing in terms of their own being.
A philosophy does not require money, either in its practice or learning -
by definition.
A person can turn a philosophy into a profitable venture, however, should
he or she so choose - and be able to find a sufficient quantity of "marks"
or "pidgeons".
Speaking of which, "pidgeons" would seem to be the, uh, appropriate term. :-)
>Anyway, I amlooking forward to some positive responses
How'd this do?
Nancy's News
and spit on it, go in the opposite direction and then blame their own
personal destruction on those who gave them the chance for success in the
first place.
I will admit I am a Sabaean and damn proud of it. I am an initiated
priestess of Yemonja and would not change that for the world. My godfather
is Odun and my godmother is his god father. I have participated in this
temple for over 20 years and stand behind its philosophies and practices as
well as I stand behind my own children.
Let me also admit that I had the unfortunate experience of being the first
wife of Karl Denninger. Karl was a man who wanted so badly something that
he risked the unspeakable, "marriage" to have it. What did he want - he
wanted what I had. He wanted my crown and he wanted what I had earned in
terms of knowledge at the temple. I speak with great authority here because
I was in the middle of it. He wanted what I had so badly that he tried to
destroy me in the process of getting it. If Karl is so damn adamant about
our philosophy and our religious practices being a farce than he should look
in the mirror and ask himself why he has done the things he has done in his
life. He didn't want a wife. He didn't want children. He didn't marry me
for one night's horizontal rumba. It could only have been for what I had at
the Temple. Fact two. When your husband tries to destroy every friendship
and relationship you have (especially those involved with the temple) you
must wonder what are his intentions. The oracle warned me of this but I was
too stupid to hear it - silly me.
You see the art of success is in hearing what the oracle really is telling
you - not hearing what you want to hear form it. This is where wisdom comes
into play. But when someone feels that they are the almighty and all
powerful as did Mr. Denninger then they are usually too self-absorbed to be
able to hear the truth in the oracle. Then you see there is the process of
learning so that you can gain the wisdom to be able to understand the
oracle. However, if your ego is too great you will not make it that far and
you will turn against your supporters because it is only power not wisdom
that you seek. They are really very different. A person with power does
not necessarily have wisdom. A person with wisdom, however, is very
powerful. This is the difference between Karl and Odun. This is why Karl
hates Odun. Odun is a very wise man.
I will also say that in order to be an active priest in a mystery religion,
which ours is, you must participate. Karl never participated. He never
wanted to get his sacred little computer fingers dirty and he never had the
time to leave his sacred little porn sights on his computer to put the
effort into learning what he had so actively pursued - his initiation.
Spirituality is participation and religion implies spirituality.
Karl thought that money was the answer to everything. We all know better
than that. What we take to our graves is our life experiences, not our
wallets. Karl, like many others, have thought that they can buy their
knowledge. Anyone with a brain in their heads and enough age behind them
well knows that knowledge and wisdom come from experience. This is why our
religion and philosophy are one of experience. Well, obviously when you are
one who thinks that if you give enough money you should get something in
return and you have given money to get something in return and the Gods have
ignored you - then I suppose you need to look a little deeper into your own
personal motivations for what you did. Sorry Karl - your stupidity.
A personal message to Karl and those who care to read it - you do not have
that much right to complain about the cost of your initiation because I paid
for 1/3rd of it. You reap what you sew man and you sewed a rotten crop
through your own distorted intentions and motivations. Careful man - Orisha
Oko is the fertility god personified.
Interestingly enough, the aspect of Yemonja that has crowned my head was the
same aspect that crowned Karl's head. Why is my life so successful and
productive and his so unsuccessful and destructive. How, if this philosophy
is such "bull....", as someone mentioned, can that be.
You see, I do not feel that I need to defend my position on this issue,
however, I do feel that one with so little knowledge needs to be stopped
from sharing an information space that normal people deserve to have. Karl
should understand this because he used to say the same thing when he was
starting up MCSNet out of our bedroom.
If Karl believes that alt.religion.sabaean belongs to him, he is
fantasizing. An idea belongs to those who sustain it. Has he sustained it?
I don't think so. Have we as Sabaeans managed to sustain ourselves through
thick and thin - yes we sure have and will continue to.
At this point - the sayings "a bad penny always turns up" or the "squeeky
wheel gets the oil" pop into my mind. I think we should all stop bothering
to feed his absurdities and ignore him. He will continue to scream and
eventually go away for lack of interest. I for one know that my time is not
worth giving to his insipid conversations - I put up with that long enough
in 1992/93.
Go bother someone else Karl, we are bored with you!
ba...@not.megs.nut wrote in message <7frepk$edl$0...@dosa.alt.net>...
>In article <37212bae...@News.megsinet.net>,
>Ba'al <Ner...@iname.com> wrote: