Jesus?
Daniel Steven Reinker
humanity nailed him up there, then felt guilty about it afterwards and so
that's our excuse.
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
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.2...@cheshire.oxy.edu>
>The Xtians say Jesus died for our sins...but I don't buy it...I think
>humanity nailed him up there, then felt guilty about it afterwards and so
>that's our excuse.
>
>Hiz Lord Dementia
If what you believe is wrong, would you want to know about it? Since this
is alt.satanism, an e-mail response will suffice.
Daniel Steven Reinker
bible and say, look at this, you are wrong. I point to humanity, and say,
look at this, YOU are wrong. I am not willing to get into a battle of beliefs
since it is impossible to win.
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>In article <92275.819...@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J02...@LMSC5.IS.LM
<<Dimentia's previous post deleted>>
>>If what you believe is wrong, would you want to know about it? Since this
>>is alt.satanism, an e-mail response will suffice.
>>
>>
>There is no way you could prove to me that this is wrong. You point to the
>bible and say, look at this, you are wrong. I point to humanity, and say,
>look at this, YOU are wrong. I am not willing to get into a battle of beliefs
>since it is impossible to win.
You didn't answer my question. If what you believed were untrue, would you
want to know about it? The answer is either, "Yes," or "No."
Daniel Steven Reinker
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>Certainly. But what I believe is not untrue. Thus I believe it.
>
>
>Hiz Lord Dementia
Thank you for your answer. Follow up taken to E-Mail
Chris
karen brown
against what you think. Don't you think that's a pretty narrowminded view?
I think if you are going to live by some philosophy you shouldn't be ashamed of
discussing it or supporting it, instead of getting completely off the subject
and bash someone's technique or approach. That is sheepishly avoiding the real
issue. Maybe you should take a look at yourself and figure out what you are
afraid of hearing....would it make you question or have to substantiate your
way of thinking? And is that so bad?
Null Cypher
[delete delete delete]
>You didn't answer my question. If what you believed were untrue, would you
>want to know about it? The answer is either, "Yes," or "No."
I personally am having problems in determining what exactly the relevence
of your question is.
rtsu...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Care to tell us who you are addressing? How about an extract or paraphrase of
the type of stuff you are referring to?
--Semhaza
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Message-ID: <58...@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>
>I personally am having problems in determining what exactly the relevence
>of your question is.
Don't feel bad, it wasn't addressed to you.
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Message-ID: <1992Oct4...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>Look you dimwit, this is alt.satanism; if anyone is hostile it is because they
>are sick & tired of closed minded morons like Marshall, Colvin & presumably
>yourself trying to convert us to their obnoxious belief systems.
Gee Kate, lighten up. I tried to send this response to your e-mail, but as
usual, it got bounced. Considering the path I traveled to get to where I got
to today, I really don't think closed mindedness fits my profile. You know
where I have been, we've discussed it in the past.
>The real issue is that fundie morons like Colvin, MArshall & presumably
>yourself should find another place to self-flagellate.
No, I think the real issue here is, when individuals post something not gen-
erally accepted in alt.satanism, the response is to flame them into Prodigy :-)
So, who is really being closed minded here?
>What do you think the damn fool quotes are a parody of!?!?! WHat makes the
>bible so different?
You asked:
It is relavent today. For instance, "You shall not murder" is relavent today.
"You shall not steal" is relavent today. "You shall not commit adultry" is
relavent today. "You shall not steal" is relavent today. This is the reader's
digest version. If you don't think principals of the Bible are relavent today,
go rob a bank, or give your spouse, or boyfriend or girlfriend to have sexual
relations with your best friend. Better yet, let your best friend rape then
murder your SO, then talk about the irrelavency of the above.
In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through time.
Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events. If it is
God's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that would betray
that it came from mere human authorship.
It is unique. Written over 1500 year time span. Over 40 authors (Bible is not
one book, but several). Written on 3 continents. Written in three languages
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet,
the biblical authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala-
tion. It has been read by more people and published in more languages than
any other book in history.
A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
WORK When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No.of Copies
============================================================================
New Testement 40-100AD 125AD 25yrs. over 24,000
Homer (Illiad) 900BC 400BC 500yrs. 643
AUTHOR When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No. of Copies
============================================================================
Caesar 100-44BC 900AD 1,000yrs. 10
Plato(Tetralogies) 427-347BC 900AD 1200 yrs. 7
Aristotle 384-322BC 1100AD 1,400 yrs. 49
There's alot more that can be cited.
Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions. Syraic and Latin
versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
curate transmissions from the older Greek texts. There are 764 lines in doubt
in Homer's Illiad.
The Talmudists (100AD-500AD) had a strict code for transcribing the Bible. It
dealt with word placement on the page, as well as preparation of the medium
that would be used. If only one word were out of place, the manuscript could
not be authenticated and used for later transcriptions. It also dictated the
color and consistancy of the ink. Nothing could be written from memory.
The Massoretes (500AD-900AD) treated the scriptures with the same reverence.
In addition, they numbered the verses to assure transcription correctness.
When the Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea
Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. 10 of
these are simply a matter of spelling. 4 were minor stylistic changes such
as conjunctions. The remaining comprise the word light which does not change
the meaning of the text. In addition, this word is supported by the LXX
(Septuagint) transcription.
This is the Reader's Digest version of what makes the Bible so "different."
There's more such as archeological digs that support places of the Bible.
Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ. It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD. Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?" Now we have a manuscript that predates
Jesus. How do we handle that?
Does the above prove the Bible is the word of God? Not necessarily. It
is just a statement about the "difference" of the Bible. If you want proof
that it is the word of God, take your questions to E-Mail.
After months of reading the group, it can be concluded that the participants,
using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.
As a former pagan, athiest, agnostic, roman catholic, I set out to prove the
Bible was false. The proof is not there.
Chris (the closed minded moron) Colvin
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
>rtsu...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes in
>Message-ID: <1992Oct4...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>
>>Look you dimwit, this is alt.satanism; if anyone is hostile it is because they
>>are sick & tired of closed minded morons like Marshall, Colvin & presumably
>>yourself trying to convert us to their obnoxious belief systems.
>
>usual, it got bounced. Considering the path I traveled to get to where I got
>to today, I really don't think closed mindedness fits my profile. You know
>where I have been, we've discussed it in the past.
Look, this is my post, Semhaza posted it for me, get the story straight..
>>The real issue is that fundie morons like Colvin, MArshall & presumably
>>yourself should find another place to self-flagellate.
>
>No, I think the real issue here is, when individuals post something not gen-
>erally accepted in alt.satanism, the response is to flame them into Prodigy :-)
The fact is, this is alt.satanism. You ask for everything you get here.
>>What do you think the damn fool quotes are a parody of!?!?! WHat makes the
>>bible so different?
>
>You asked:
No I did not ask, I was repeating what the other person said.
>
>It is relavent today. For instance, "You shall not murder" is relavent today.
>"You shall not steal" is relavent today. "You shall not commit adultry" is
Unless god ordains it (see xian crimes bible quotes)
>relavent today. "You shall not steal" is relavent today. This is the reader's
>digest version. If you don't think principals of the Bible are relavent today,
>go rob a bank, or give your spouse, or boyfriend or girlfriend to have sexual
>relations with your best friend. Better yet, let your best friend rape then
>murder your SO, then talk about the irrelavency of the above.
Hey, why the hell not? The Israelites stole all the riches & lands of the
Caananites, after exterminating them; but this was god's will so it don't count
right? Then we have David, ancester of Jesus, who had a man killed so he could
screw his wife. This was Israel's best king (oh yes, but he was punished {hah})
>
>In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through time.
>Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events. If it is
>God's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that would betray
>that it came from mere human authorship.
Indeed if it _was_ "god's" word I would presume this. It is rife with
absurdities; of course the xtian can always say the bible was speaking
metaphorically on whatever absurd point SHe dislikes (even though for 1000
years before xtians had taken that passage literally)
>It is unique. Written over 1500 year time span. Over 40 authors (Bible is not
>one book, but several). Written on 3 continents. Written in three languages
I thought it was god's book?
>Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet,
>the biblical authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala-
>tion. It has been read by more people and published in more languages than
Harmoniously? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! You do have a sense of humor. What
little internal consistancy it has is due to the pickings & choosings of books
that seem to fit by the early church fathers.
>any other book in history.
I believe Mao Tse Tung's book has been read by more people; see the book of
lists.
>
>A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
>
>
>WORK When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No.of Copies
>============================================================================
>New Testement 40-100AD 125AD 25yrs. over 24,000
, ^^^^
this date is woefully incorrect. The 24000 figure is about
24001 too high. There were _no_ copies in existance at that date, unless
Mr Colvin has one in his basement
>Homer (Illiad) 900BC 400BC 500yrs. 643
^^^^^
Also misleading. The Illiad was much more famous in its time than the NT.
>
>AUTHOR When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No. of Copies
>============================================================================
>Caesar 100-44BC 900AD 1,000yrs. 10
>Plato(Tetralogies) 427-347BC 900AD 1200 yrs. 7
>Aristotle 384-322BC 1100AD 1,400 yrs. 49
Same with these figures. Which Ceasar & what book pray tell? Aristotle was
taught for thousands of years before this. There is much historical data,
including chroniclers of the times who mention these thinkers.
There is little historical mention of biblical writings untill @300 AD
>There's alot more that can be cited.
I doubt it, its a poor metaphor anyway...
>
>Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions. Syraic and Latin
>versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
^^^^^
Oh, so now the NT was written _before_ Jesus' birth. Sounds about right for a
fictional charachter...
>In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
>curate transmissions from the older Greek texts. There are 764 lines in doubt
>in Homer's Illiad.
All 24000 manuscripts huh? What if, say, all 24000 were copied from each other?
This is how things were done in the old days of Monk/scribes...
>The Talmudists (100AD-500AD) had a strict code for transcribing the Bible. It
>dealt with word placement on the page, as well as preparation of the medium
>that would be used. If only one word were out of place, the manuscript could
>not be authenticated and used for later transcriptions. It also dictated the
>color and consistancy of the ink. Nothing could be written from memory.
This sounds accurate. So what? This is about 700-4000 years after the alleged
events took place.
>
>The Massoretes (500AD-900AD) treated the scriptures with the same reverence.
>In addition, they numbered the verses to assure transcription correctness.
Again; so what?
>When the Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea
>Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. 10 of
>these are simply a matter of spelling. 4 were minor stylistic changes such
>as conjunctions. The remaining comprise the word light which does not change
>the meaning of the text. In addition, this word is supported by the LXX
>(Septuagint) transcription.
This is nice. I supose you didn't read the scrolls description of early
Christianity? Shocking they were...
>This is the Reader's Digest version of what makes the Bible so "different."
>There's more such as archeological digs that support places of the Bible.
Like? I have an example. They dug up Jericho. Indeed the walls did fall down
& the place was sacked. there was also something like 3 more layers of city
above this layer, with the same culture. This implies that the bible did get
some of the facts correct, but of course changed lots to suit the victors...
>Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ. It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
>manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD. Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
>to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?" Now we have a manuscript that predates
>Jesus. How do we handle that?
No, the book of Isaiah predicts a Messiah. The Jews still hold this prophecy as
relevant; it really has nothing to do with Jesus per se; its just that a
certain group of people happened to interpret this a certain way.
Here's an interesting fact for you to chew on;
If Jesus is the son of god, and as per the Isaiah prophecy, a descendant of
King David, then why the hell does the book of Matthew trace his bloodline
to David through _JOSEPH_?
Guess it wasn't a virgin birth eh guys? The bible _blatantly_ says Jesus was
illegitamate; a _bastard_!
>Does the above prove the Bible is the word of God? Not necessarily. It
>is just a statement about the "difference" of the Bible. If you want proof
>that it is the word of God, take your questions to E-Mail.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If your proofs on that subject are anywhere near as weak as these are (I
suspect they will be weaker- better minds that yours have tried & failed)
_Someone_ is in for a good laugh...
>After months of reading the group, it can be concluded that the participants,
>using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.
Nope, too much evidence for that. I certainly _could_ proove beyond a shadow of
a doubt a few things about them youdidn't know.
For instance; Good old George Washington grew & smoked _marijuana_!
>As a former pagan, athiest, agnostic, roman catholic, I set out to prove the
>Bible was false. The proof is not there.
Nice to see you've found the truth Mr C. Its _your_ truth; keep it to yourself.
>Chris (the closed minded moron) Colvin
No argument here...
Scott (the Servant of the Great Old ones) Locklin
Tim Fleehart
>"You shall not steal" is relavent today. "You shall not commit adultry" is
>relavent today. "You shall not steal" is relavent today. This is the
More like:
You shall not murder, except when your government condones it for whatever
reason or the church sanctions it in the name of Jeeesus.
You shall not steal, except from those who can least afford protection
against it.
You shall not commit adultry, except when you are a member of the clergy.
You got the 'shall not steal' in there twice...
>reader's digest version. If you don't think principals of the Bible are
>relavent today, go rob a bank, or give your spouse, or boyfriend or
>girlfriend to have sexual relations with your best friend. Better yet, let
>your best friend rape then murder your SO, then talk about the irrelavency
>of the above.
But the penalties for the actions you suggest are codified in civil law...
God isn't gonna zap me with a thunder-bolt if I filch a candy-bar from the
safeway down the road...
What about the other principles of the bible, like you aren't supposed to
wear clothing made of a mix of fibres? Is this relevant today?
>In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through
>time. Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events.
>If it is God's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that
>would betray that it came from mere human authorship.
But it isn't... what about the places (two I believe) where it is written
that someone climbed into a tree from which he could see *all* of the earth?
And suppose that we've been translating some stuff incorrectly throughout
the ages, so instead of "thou shalt not kill", the original "thou shalt kill
with reckless abandon"? How can you prove *this* isn't true?
Why is a work supposedly of devine inspiration so sloppy in the first few
chapters of the first book to repeat itself? Wouldn't you think god would
have a clear head for this? Wouldn't you think god would choose those
vessels most able to flawlessly transmit his work to us?
>It is unique. Written over 1500 year time span. Over 40 authors (Bible is not
>one book, but several).
And not everyone agrees which several books either...
>Written on 3 continents. Written in three languages Hebrew, Aramaic and
>Greek. It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet, the biblical
>authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala- tion. It
>has been read by more people and published in more languages than any other
>book in history.
All this for $19.95, but wait there's more...
>A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
>
>WORK When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No.of Copies
>============================================================================
>New Testement 40-100AD 125AD 25yrs. over 24,000
>Homer (Illiad) 900BC 400BC 500yrs. 643
>
>AUTHOR When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No. of Copies
>============================================================================
>Caesar 100-44BC 900AD 1,000yrs. 10
>Plato(Tetralogies) 427-347BC 900AD 1200 yrs. 7
>Aristotle 384-322BC 1100AD 1,400 yrs. 49
>There's alot more that can be cited.
What? So it's a best seller; people have been duped before but never so
greatly...
>Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions. Syraic and Latin
>versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
>In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
>curate transmissions from the older Greek texts. There are 764 lines in doubt
>in Homer's Illiad.
So the translations at the time were better than our translations now...
Does this surprise anyone considering that aramic and the greek it was
written in relatively 'dead' languages today?
>The Talmudists (100AD-500AD) had a strict code for transcribing the Bible. It
>dealt with word placement on the page, as well as preparation of the medium
>that would be used. If only one word were out of place, the manuscript could
>not be authenticated and used for later transcriptions. It also dictated the
>color and consistancy of the ink. Nothing could be written from memory.
>
>The Massoretes (500AD-900AD) treated the scriptures with the same reverence.
>In addition, they numbered the verses to assure transcription correctness.
>When the Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea
>Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. 10 of
>these are simply a matter of spelling. 4 were minor stylistic changes such
>as conjunctions. The remaining comprise the word light which does not change
>the meaning of the text. In addition, this word is supported by the LXX
>(Septuagint) transcription.
The above only suggests that it has been copied well, not that the originals
were correct...
>This is the Reader's Digest version of what makes the Bible so "different."
>There's more such as archeological digs that support places of the Bible.
>Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ. It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
>manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD. Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
>to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?" Now we have a manuscript that predates
>Jesus. How do we handle that?
How do we handle the prophesies of Nostradamus? Sooner or later something
that is similar to the prophesy will occur.
>After months of reading the group, it can be concluded that the participants,
>using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.
I just can't take anything on faith that I can't see and reproduce. To me
it doesn't make a difference whether or not jesus/god, George Washington or
Abraham Lincoln existed or not. There aren't here now, and things are they
way they are. But if I were to worship one, I'd probably choose Lincoln
because IMHO the story is a whole lot more realistic.
Tim
Tim Fleehart
>using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.
>
>As a former pagan, athiest, agnostic, roman catholic, I set out to prove the
>Bible was false. The proof is not there.
We aren't looking for proof of position.
Didn't your god give us free will so we could choose our own path?
We have chosen our path, please go away.
Tim
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
the Ages" (or whatever- it the one everyone uses) There are 3 pictures of old
representations of Moses. 2 of the 3 have horns.
p375 fig. 9-40 Biblical illustration...
p652 fig. 17-20 Michealangelo's "Moses" statue (quite magnificent actually)
On cursory examination I found no explanation for the horns in the text, though
interestingly, in the biblical illustration, Aaron, next to Moses, has none.
ye biblical scholar and servante of Cthulhu...
-Scott
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>In article <92279.255...@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J02...@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>rtsu...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes in
>>Message-ID: <1992Oct4...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>>
>>>Look you dimwit, this is alt.satanism; if anyone is hostile it is because the
>>>are sick & tired of closed minded morons like Marshall, Colvin & presumably
>>>yourself trying to convert us to their obnoxious belief systems.
>>
>>ee Semhaza, lighten up. I tried to send this response to your e-mail, but as
In my previous post, I used "Kate." It was a typo. Kate, one of my co-workers
came into my office at the time. She was a little miffed to see her name in
print.
>Look, this is my post, Semhaza posted it for me, get the story straight..
Yup, I thought it was a little rude for Semhaza style. Sorry "S" you have
a lot more class than this.
>The fact is, this is alt.satanism. You ask for everything you get here.
Not necessarily.
>>>What do you think the damn fool quotes are a parody of!?!?! WHat makes the
>>>bible so different?
>>
>>You asked:
>
>No I did not ask, I was repeating what the other person said.
Oh well....... :-), somebody asked.
>
>>t is relavent today. For instance, "You shall not murder" is relavent today.
>>You shall not steal" is relavent today. "You shall not commit adultry" is
>
>Unless god ordains it (see xian crimes bible quotes)
Tell me where to look.
>>relavent today. "You shall not steal" is relavent today. This is the reader'
>>digest version. If you don't think principals of the Bible are relavent today
>>go rob a bank, or give your spouse, or boyfriend or girlfriend to have sexual
>>relations with your best friend. Better yet, let your best friend rape then
>>murder your SO, then talk about the irrelavency of the above.
>Hey, why the hell not? The Israelites stole all the riches & lands of the
>aananites, after exterminating them; but this was god's will so it don't count
>right? Then we have David, ancester of Jesus, who had a man killed so he could
>crew his wife. This was Israel's best king (oh yes, but he was punished {hah})
Why do you suppose the land was given to the Isrealites? Was it because the
Caananites worshiped Baal? As you said David was punished. The son born out
of that relationship died. Scott, I don't know if you have any kids or not
but if you ever do, and you ever live longer than one of your children, you
may know then know the anguish David felt when his son died. Oh, but this
is the Bible. It's untrue! Scott, when you have a kid, kill it, and see what
the mother says.
>
>>In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through time
>>Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events. If it is
>>od's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that would betray
>>that it came from mere human authorship.
>
>Indeed if it _was_ "god's" word I would presume this. It is rife with
>absurdities; of course the xtian can always say the bible was speaking
>metaphorically on whatever absurd point SHe dislikes (even though for 1000
>years before xtians had taken that passage literally)
I'll accept that, can you name one (in context).
>>t is unique. Written over 1500 year time span. Over 40 authors (Bible is not
>>one book, but several). Written on 3 continents. Written in three languages
>
>I thought it was god's book?
So what are you saying here? "The Hunt For Red October" was translated into
different languages. Does that make it any less than the author's work?
>>ebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet,
>>he biblical authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala-
>>ion. It has been read by more people and published in more languages than
>
>Harmoniously? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! You do have a sense of humor. What
>little internal consistancy it has is due to the pickings & choosings of books
>that seem to fit by the early church fathers.
Care to give some supporting evidence? Are you familiar with how the books
were canonized? What church fathers are you referring to? Certainly not
the Roman Catholic church I hope.
>any other book in history.
>I believe Mao Tse Tung's book has been read by more people; see the book of
>lists.
Tung's book is no longer in use. The Bible is.
>>
>>A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
>>
>>
>>WORK When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No.of Copies
>>============================================================================
>>New Testement 40-100AD 125AD 25yrs. over 24,000
>, ^^^^
> this date is woefully incorrect. The 24000 figure is about
>24001 too high. There were _no_ copies in existance at that date, unless
>Mr Colvin has one in his basement
What are your sources? This figure includes 15000 copies of the Latin Vulgate.
Subtract the Latin Vulgate and you're right, there's a substantial reduction in
number, but still a lot more than the Illiad.
>>Homer (Illiad) 900BC 400BC 500yrs. 643
> ^^^^^
> Also misleading. The Illiad was much more famous in its time than the NT.
>
Tom Sawyer was more famous than Catcher in the Rye when CITR was released.
Based on the time line, I can accept your statement. Gee, I guess I'm not
as closed minded after all. However, today the Bible is more famous than
the Illiad (or should I say more widely circulated).
>>AUTHOR When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No. of Copies
>>============================================================================
>>Caesar 100-44BC 900AD 1,000yrs. 10
>>Plato(Tetralogies) 427-347BC 900AD 1200 yrs. 7
>>Aristotle 384-322BC 1100AD 1,400 yrs. 49
>
>Same with these figures. Which Ceasar & what book pray tell? Aristotle was
>taught for thousands of years before this. There is much historical data,
>including chroniclers of the times who mention these thinkers.
>There is little historical mention of biblical writings untill @300 AD
There is much historical data, including chroniclers of the times who mention
the people of the bible. Your words. About biblical writings until 300AD?
What about the book of Isaiah discovered in Qumram 1? Did some monk place it
there? Gee, which Caesar was on the throne during 100-44BC?
>>
>>Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions. Syraic and Latin
>>versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
> ^^^^^
>Oh, so now the NT was written _before_ Jesus' birth. Sounds about right for a
>fictional charachter...
eeexxxxcuse me. OOPS! Typo 150BC should read 150AD
>In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
>curate transmissions from the older Greek texts. There are 764 lines in doubt
>in Homer's Illiad.
>ll 24000 manuscripts huh? What if, say, all 24000 were copied from each other?
>This is how things were done in the old days of Monk/scribes...
Read on.
>>he Talmudists (100AD-500AD) had a strict code for transcribing the Bible. It
>>dealt with word placement on the page, as well as preparation of the medium
>>that would be used. If only one word were out of place, the manuscript could
>>not be authenticated and used for later transcriptions. It also dictated the
>>color and consistancy of the ink. Nothing could be written from memory.
>
>This sounds accurate. So what? This is about 700-4000 years after the alleged
>events took place.
Thanks for the compliment. This shows the care undertaken in the transcribing.
A lot of folks (Mormons) debunk the Bible citing ,"It's accurate only as long
as it's translated properly." Well, I don"t think the LDS Church fathers ever
took a course in Hermanutics. In addition their "scripture" is riddled with
word changes that change meanings. The bible has been consistant.
>>When the Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea
>>Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. 10 of
>>these are simply a matter of spelling. 4 were minor stylistic changes such
>>the meaning of the text. In addition, this word is supported by the LXX
>>(Septuagint) transcription.
>
>This is nice. I supose you didn't read the scrolls description of early
>Christianity? Shocking they were...
Send me a copy. PO BOX 23081, San Jose, CA 95153-3081. BTW, if I were
"closed minded" I wouldn't make the request.
>>This is the Reader's Digest version of what makes the Bible so "different."
>>There's more such as archeological digs that support places of the Bible.
>
>Like? I have an example. They dug up Jericho. Indeed the walls did fall down
>& the place was sacked. there was also something like 3 more layers of city
>above this layer, with the same culture. This implies that the bible did get
>some of the facts correct, but of course changed lots to suit the victors...
The Moabite Stone discovered in 1868 dates to c. 850BC. It was erected by
Mesha, king of Moab, and is often styled the Mesha Stone. It tells of the
wars of Mesha of Moab with Omri, King of Isreal, and Omri's Successors. It
also tells of wars with the Edomites. The material recorded on the Moabite
Stone parallels biblical history recorded in Second Kings, Chapters 1 and 3.
>>Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ. It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
>>manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD. Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
>>to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?" Now we have a manuscript that predates
>>Jesus. How do we handle that?
>o, the book of Isaiah predicts a Messiah. The Jews still hold this prophecy as
>relevant; it really has nothing to do with Jesus per se; its just that a
>certain group of people happened to interpret this a certain way.
Dare I list Isaiah prophecies and the fulfillments in Christ? Hmmm, could be
a long post (isn't this long enough already?) Tell ya what, I'll see if my
buddy Ed will do it. Then you'll have another individual to flame.
>Here's an interesting fact for you to chew on;
>If Jesus is the son of god, and as per the Isaiah prophecy, a descendant of
>King David, then why the hell does the book of Matthew trace his bloodline
>to David through _JOSEPH_?
>Guess it wasn't a virgin birth eh guys? The bible _blatantly_ says Jesus was
>illegitamate; a _bastard_!
Humm, well, let's see. Matthew addressed the Jews who were very legalistic
when it came to birthright. The crown of Judah had to pass through Solomon
Since Joseph (as you admit above) was descended from Solomon, he, through
the lineage was entitled to the birthright of the throne of Judah. In Matthew
we are told that Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, but not by him. He
could have had her stoned, but chose not to. But, you're right, this doesn't
prove Jesus is a blood line to David. Joseph accepted Jesus as his *legal*
son although He was not his *natural* son. Well, how does the blood line
of Jesus trace back to David? Let's look at Mary's geneology. Notice, in
Matthew, Jesus *legal* grandfather is Jacob, yet in Luke 3:23 we see Jesus'
grandfather as Heli (Eli), who was Mary's father. Luke was a doctor who
was interested in Mary's geneology. Mary's lineage is traced to Nathan,
David's other son, so Jesus is the bloodline of David, and claims *legal*
right to the throne through his adoption by Joseph.
>>Does the above prove the Bible is the word of God? Not necessarily. It
>>is just a statement about the "difference" of the Bible. If you want proof
>>that it is the word of God, take your questions to E-Mail.
>>After months of reading the group, it can be concluded that the participants,
>>using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>>that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.
>
>ope, too much evidence for that. I certainly _could_ proove beyond a shadow of
>a doubt a few things about them youdidn't know.
>For instance; Good old George Washington grew & smoked _marijuana_!
Prove they existed. BTW, you need to apply the same rules you apply to the
Bible. You can't use writings of his contemporaries. You can't use paintings,
etchings, wood block carvings. You can't use photographs (as in the ficticious
Lincoln's case). You can't use alleged diaries, they are probably forgeries.
Forget the remains in the graves of people whose headstones bear the name
Washington and Lincoln. All they prove is Washington and Lincoln is written
on the head stone. The remains in the graves prove someone is buried there
Forget any archeological artifacts. They could have been orchestrated by
the Timothy Leary, Rush Limbaugh, and Ted Kennedy.
>Scott (the Servant of the Great Old ones) Locklin
It looks like we're getting into a bit of a pissing contest, so let me leave
you with this:
1 COR 2:14 - But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God;
for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they
are spiritually appraised.
1 COR 1:18 - For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolish-
ness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 COR 1:22 - For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom;
(think you search for wisdom and there's nothing wrong with that).
Scott or anybody for that matter, what evidence do you require in order to
believe the Bible?
Now, for those who would consider me closed minded the following challenge
is issued:
JER 29:12-13 Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will
listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with
your heart.
If you flame me for JER 29:12-13, then I cannot be the only one accused of
having a closed mind.
J02...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>Didn't your god give us free will so we could choose our own path?
Yes, that's why I prefer OS/2 and Unix over MSDOS and Windows.
>We have chosen our path, please go away.
When you're finished bashing Christianity and Christ, I will.
>Tim
Chris
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
>>Look, this is my post, Semhaza posted it for me, get the story straight..
>
>Yup, I thought it was a little rude for Semhaza style. Sorry "S" you have
>a lot more class than this.
Not when I'm pissed off & sleep deprived.
>>Unless god ordains it (see xian crimes bible quotes)
>
>Tell me where to look.
Old Testament.
>Caananites worshiped Baal? As you said David was punished. The son born out
>of that relationship died. Scott, I don't know if you have any kids or not
Er, unless I'm terribly mistaken, the next one lived & became the next king
(don't have my doorstop/bible with me)
>but if you ever do, and you ever live longer than one of your children, you
>may know then know the anguish David felt when his son died. Oh, but this
>is the Bible. It's untrue! Scott, when you have a kid, kill it, and see what
>the mother says.
David had thousands of kids. I doubt he noticed.
>>>In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through time
>>>Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events. If it is
>>>od's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that would betray
>>>that it came from mere human authorship.
>>
>>Indeed if it _was_ "god's" word I would presume this. It is rife with
>>absurdities; of course the xtian can always say the bible was speaking
>>metaphorically on whatever absurd point SHe dislikes (even though for 1000
>>years before xtians had taken that passage literally)
>
>I'll accept that, can you name one (in context).
1 The world is flat (taken directly from the book of genesis)
2 god flooded the whole earth
3 in the old days people lived longer (Adam's age > 700yrs)
4 there were giants
5 the israelites were egyptian captives
6 moses parted the red sea
I could go on all day... (this is only the first couple books)
>>>ebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet,
>>>he biblical authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala-
>>>ion. It has been read by more people and published in more languages than
>>
>>Harmoniously? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! You do have a sense of humor. What
>>little internal consistancy it has is due to the pickings & choosings of books
>>that seem to fit by the early church fathers.
>
>Care to give some supporting evidence? Are you familiar with how the books
>were canonized? What church fathers are you referring to? Certainly not
>the Roman Catholic church I hope.
I believe two differing geneaologies are given for JC.
Like it or not the early church _was_ the RC church. These are the people
who compiled the bible.
>
>>I believe Mao Tse Tung's book has been read by more people; see the book of
>>lists.
>
>Tung's book is no longer in use. The Bible is.
As usual you are grossly mistaken. Ask a chinese refugee (like my roomie).
>>>A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
>>>
>>>
>>>WORK When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No.of Copies
>>>============================================================================
>>>New Testement 40-100AD 125AD 25yrs. over 24,000
>>, ^^^^
>> this date is woefully incorrect. The 24000 figure is about
>>24001 too high. There were _no_ copies in existance at that date, unless
>>Mr Colvin has one in his basement
>
>What are your sources? This figure includes 15000 copies of the Latin Vulgate.
>Subtract the Latin Vulgate and you're right, there's a substantial reduction in
>number, but still a lot more than the Illiad.
The earliest copies of the New testament are from the 4th century. There are
_not_ anywhere near 24000 of them. More like 2/3. If you would use your head
for something other than a hatrack you would realize what a ridiculous figure
24000 copies is for that time.
Think: at 125 a.d. there _might_ have been 24000 christians; this is an
extremely generous figure. Even assuming an order of magnitude more (10X)
this is one manuscript for 10 xtians. How many scribes working how long
do you think it would take to produce these manuscripts? How would these
10 xtains afford it? If you want the read figures consult the latest FAQ
(which I will post again [it was under an incorrect heading last time])
under the "reading list" section. The refs are there
>> Also misleading. The Illiad was much more famous in its time than the NT.
>>
>
>Tom Sawyer was more famous than Catcher in the Rye when CITR was released.
>Based on the time line, I can accept your statement. Gee, I guess I'm not
>as closed minded after all. However, today the Bible is more famous than
>the Illiad (or should I say more widely circulated).
Too bad; the Illiad is a better read.
>>>AUTHOR When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No. of Copies
>>>============================================================================
>>>Caesar 100-44BC 900AD 1,000yrs. 10
>>>Plato(Tetralogies) 427-347BC 900AD 1200 yrs. 7
>>>Aristotle 384-322BC 1100AD 1,400 yrs. 49
>>
>>Same with these figures. Which Ceasar & what book pray tell? Aristotle was
>>taught for thousands of years before this. There is much historical data,
>>including chroniclers of the times who mention these thinkers.
>>There is little historical mention of biblical writings untill @300 AD
>
>There is much historical data, including chroniclers of the times who mention
>the people of the bible. Your words. About biblical writings until 300AD?
No, your words; produce the data. I suspect you got these figures from the
Jehova's witness publication; "The Watchtower"
Incidentally, the only real writings we have, (there may have been a passing
reference to his execution bythe Romans), that corroborate the existance
of Jesus in any way (besides the Bible) are the "Dead Sea Scrolls"
>What about the book of Isaiah discovered in Qumram 1? Did some monk place it
>there? Gee, which Caesar was on the throne during 100-44BC?
Nope, Isaiah is Kosher. The NT is not. For example; the romans were careful
administrators & chroniclers. If Jesus had made half the impression on the Jews
(thousands gathering to hear him) as the NT says, than there must have been
some record of his activities. Many of the Zealot insurgents were recorded
in their annals. If you read the history of jewish religion & writing of the
time, you would realize the NT is one great allegory...
>Thanks for the compliment. This shows the care undertaken in the transcribing.
>A lot of folks (Mormons) debunk the Bible citing ,"It's accurate only as long
>as it's translated properly." Well, I don"t think the LDS Church fathers ever
>took a course in Hermanutics. In addition their "scripture" is riddled with
>word changes that change meanings. The bible has been consistant.
Atheists say this as well. Its true. Many phrases in other languages have
dual & more meanings. Some are hidden jokes. Many are totally untranslatable.
You must be a scholar of ancient languages to decide for yourself the true
meanings.
>>This is nice. I supose you didn't read the scrolls description of early
>>Christianity? Shocking they were...
>
>Send me a copy. PO BOX 23081, San Jose, CA 95153-3081. BTW, if I were
>"closed minded" I wouldn't make the request.
Go to the library. Look under the heading "Dead Sea Scrolls" or "Christianity,
origins" or merely look up the books I reccommend in the FAQ.
>The Moabite Stone discovered in 1868 dates to c. 850BC. It was erected by
>Mesha, king of Moab, and is often styled the Mesha Stone. It tells of the
>wars of Mesha of Moab with Omri, King of Isreal, and Omri's Successors. It
>also tells of wars with the Edomites. The material recorded on the Moabite
>Stone parallels biblical history recorded in Second Kings, Chapters 1 and 3.
A trivial thing. Find some extensive Roman references to JC & we will be
getting somewhere.
>
>>>Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ. It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
>>>manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD. Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
>>>to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?" Now we have a manuscript that predates
>>>Jesus. How do we handle that?
>
>>o, the book of Isaiah predicts a Messiah. The Jews still hold this prophecy as
>>relevant; it really has nothing to do with Jesus per se; its just that a
>>certain group of people happened to interpret this a certain way.
>
>Dare I list Isaiah prophecies and the fulfillments in Christ? Hmmm, could be
>a long post (isn't this long enough already?) Tell ya what, I'll see if my
>buddy Ed will do it. Then you'll have another individual to flame.
I don't care. I do not accept the historical validity of the NT. It has too
much of a pro-roman bias (render unto caeser & etc.) to be an authentic
jewish document (as one example of internal inconsistancies). Jesus would
have been offed by the Zealots had he spewed such nonsense; especially if he
claimed to be the messiah, who the Zealots beleived would free them from Rome.
This pro-roman slant would be expected for a document written after the fact,
by a _Roman_ christian (/catholic) compiler.
>>Here's an interesting fact for you to chew on;
>>If Jesus is the son of god, and as per the Isaiah prophecy, a descendant of
>>King David, then why the hell does the book of Matthew trace his bloodline
>>to David through _JOSEPH_?
>>Guess it wasn't a virgin birth eh guys? The bible _blatantly_ says Jesus was
>>illegitamate; a _bastard_!
>
>Humm, well, let's see. Matthew addressed the Jews who were very legalistic
>when it came to birthright. The crown of Judah had to pass through Solomon
>Since Joseph (as you admit above) was descended from Solomon, he, through
>the lineage was entitled to the birthright of the throne of Judah. In Matthew
>we are told that Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, but not by him. He
>could have had her stoned, but chose not to. But, you're right, this doesn't
Also unlikely. Any red-blooded jew of the time would have killed her. Face it
they were fooling around. Incidentally, the language used in the NT (ie "son
of god") is explained in that Joseph & Mary were Essenes. Essene women are
always referred to as "virgins" and certain Essene men were considered to
be incarnations of angels, all this is in the Dead sea scrolls.
>prove Jesus is a blood line to David. Joseph accepted Jesus as his *legal*
>son although He was not his *natural* son. Well, how does the blood line
Didn't work that way. No legal mechanism. Bastards were killed or remained
bastards.
>of Jesus trace back to David? Let's look at Mary's geneology. Notice, in
>Matthew, Jesus *legal* grandfather is Jacob, yet in Luke 3:23 we see Jesus'
>grandfather as Heli (Eli), who was Mary's father. Luke was a doctor who
>was interested in Mary's geneology. Mary's lineage is traced to Nathan,
>David's other son, so Jesus is the bloodline of David, and claims *legal*
>right to the throne through his adoption by Joseph.
Bzzzzt! Kings ancestries are traced through the Father side, unless you belong
to certain mongol or indian tribes.
>>a doubt a few things about them youdidn't know.
>>For instance; Good old George Washington grew & smoked _marijuana_!
>
>Prove they existed. BTW, you need to apply the same rules you apply to the
>Bible. You can't use writings of his contemporaries. You can't use paintings
I never said you couldn't use contemporary writings, in the NT case therre
are none; What we have (dead sea scrolls) don't agree with the NT.
I never said Jesus (Joshua) didn't exist. I said the NT is grossly innacurate.
>etchings, wood block carvings. You can't use photographs (as in the ficticious
>Lincoln's case). You can't use alleged diaries, they are probably forgeries.
>Forget the remains in the graves of people whose headstones bear the name
>Washington and Lincoln. All they prove is Washington and Lincoln is written
>on the head stone. The remains in the graves prove someone is buried there
>Forget any archeological artifacts. They could have been orchestrated by
>the Timothy Leary, Rush Limbaugh, and Ted Kennedy.
If we had any of these things I might believe. All we have is the NT and lots
of historical data that disagrees. In fact _most_ of the historical data
disagrees.
[irrelevant biblical qoutes deleted]
"be not ye lost among the precepts of order" -the book of the Uterus
"Hey boy; ain't you got no 'lectrical current runnin yo brain?"-Foghorn Leghorn
in Cthulhu's hyphae...
-Scott
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
>>Didn't your god give us free will so we could choose our own path?
>
>Yes, that's why I prefer OS/2 and Unix over MSDOS and Windows.
of course, theological choices are out of the question. How can you compare
UNIX to windows or MSDOS? There ain't no support for os/2...
>
>>We have chosen our path, please go away.
>
>When you're finished bashing Christianity and Christ, I will.
The only time christianity is "bashed" here is when someone like yourself
begins to preach; and what do you expect?
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
This is the second post of this improved FAQ. Sorry. Last one didn't allow
me to change thje subject heading...
-------------------------Chop with Double headed Axe---------------------------
1. What is Satanism?
Satanism is difficult to define. As there is no authoritative, "divinely
revealed" text of Satanism as there are for most major religions, nor a body of
oral traditions, the individual Satanist must define a philosophy for
him/herself. Thus, you will find some widely diverging opinions in this
newsgroup. However, there are a few generalizations I can make: the average
Satanist disagrees with much of xianity, believes in no absolute moral code,
and places emphasis on the individual and personal rights.
The following categorization of Satanism was paraphrased from Fra. Auditus'
article,"What is Satanism" in ABRASAX#4. While these categories are not all
truely "Satanic," many have chosen to label them as such, and consequentally
they are included. Also, most "Satanic" groups could fit in several of these
categories, both philosophically and historically (the yezidis are an example
of a group that could be part of several categories).
1. _The Classical Satanist_: This is the common, media view of what a Satanist "is". These Satanists believe in being "evil" (note the quotes)as a way of life
and worship Satan as an evil god. They have sacrifices, blood ritual,orgies
etc., all the trappings associated with Satanism in the group consciousness.
Some theorise that these people see the world as a basically evil place, assume
the world is under the rule of "satan" and ally themselves accordingly. While
there is some evidence for these groups, it is generally agreed that they are
rare in comparison with other "Satanist" groups.
2. _The Primitives_: Worship a malicious or capricious god who sometimes hurts
people. While many Satanists would disagree with their being categorized as
such, it is part of the popular image of Satanism & so included. Some examples
of these cults are the Kali-worshippers, various african cults, such as the
Shango and voudoun, certain types of taoism & shintoism,etc... These people
follow ancient rites, and see the world as being a chaotic, spirit-filled
place. Though they get bad press, they are generally harmless...
3. _Antinomial Gnostics_: While most gnostics were into self-denial as a way
to achieve salvation, the Antinomal Gnostics choose the opposite path. The
"Monestary of the Seven rays" is an example, as is the American Gnostic
Church, Daimond Sutra Buddism (different path-same philosophy) and the
knights templar (supposedly-take any knights templar stuff with a grain of
salt). Crowleyanism can usually be seen in groups of this type, though in
certain obvious cases (Diamond sutra) it is not an influence, but a paralell.
4. _The Hell-Fire Rakes_: this is the Satanism of Sir Frances Dashwood, and
Benjamin Franklin. While occultism was a part of their activities, these groups
were mainly an excuse for debauchery. There were various occult lodges in the
17th century that could be put in this category, & some may survive today.
5. _Churches of Satan_: These groups are less interested in religious or
spiritual activities than in social ones. They believe in individualism,
strength, self-indulgance etc.. They work against oppressive religious
regulations and mores, especially christian ones. Most USENET Satanists
probobly fall more or less in this category.
6. _Evolutionary Force_: these groups see Satan as an evolutionary force with
a non-existant or indifferent creator. This is a semi-gnostic concept, but many
of the other gnostic concepts are not adhered to. The Temple of Set is one
of these groups. They tend to be more hierarchal than the Church of Satan, and
take a more spiritual path, placing less emphasis on the "indulgance" advocated
by the Church of Satan.
the Temple of Set can be contacted at this address
Temple of Set
P.O. Box 470307
San Fransisco CA 94147
7. _Rosemary's Baby (yikes!)_: This is a purely imaginary conspiracy of devil
worshippers invented by witch hunters of the middle ages, and such notables
as Montague Summers, Jeffrey Russell, Pat Robertson and certain portions of
the John Bircher society. They are supposed to have killed babies, tried
to overthrow the authority of the church, cause misery and destruction &
other noble persuits. As they are widely recognized not to exist, or have
existed, no examples can be cited.
8. _Guardians of the Abyss_: these are the various occult groups following the
western magickal tradition (tarot/quaballa/hermetic/enochian/alchemy). They
see Satan as the "gaurdian of the abyss"; Pazuzu. The magus must cross the
abyss, the "dark night of the soul" as part of hir initiation. This tradition
takes much from Jung, and the grail legends.
9. _Horned God Cults_: some ancient pagan cults worship the horned god. The
basis of identifying Satan as a horned god was probobly that of the inquisitors
trying to identify the religious practices of these pagans with something
more sinister. With the modern revival of "witch-cults" the horned god has
undergone a modern renaissance.
2. Satan is a xian god!
Most (possibly all) religions have gods or demons that represent the principle
of evil. Satan is one among these, originally conceived by the Jews long before
the birth of Jesus. I believe the name first appeared (in _The Bible_, at
least) in the book of Job.
3. Why use the name Satan? Why not use another name?
Satan is an archetype. One of the most direct archetypes available in our
(euro-american) culture. It brings to mind many things immidiatly. Some of
these things are negative (sacrifice goats & all that crap), but many are
not;sexuality, power over the earth, lucifer as the "bringer of light",
freedom from inhibition etc. No other archetype brings these things to mind
as effectively as Satan.
Another reason is the association with, and borrowing from the old pagan
horned god ceremonies. Though the Satan in the bible has no horns, this is
the image of the _Archetype_ & so an equivalent thing.
Yet another reason (for Church of Satan anyway) is the association with
the yezidis, gnostics who revered a horned god (which was identified with
satan)
4. What is _The Satanic Bible_?
_The Satanic Bible_ describes the philosophy of the Church of Satan, founded by
Anton LaVey. This organization holds the view that there is no higher god than
oneself, and that one whould worship accordingly--a form of egotheism. Although
many Satanists don't agree with much of the book, most probably would agree
with some of its philosophy as summed up in the Nine Satanic Statements. _The
Satanis Bible_ can be found (in America, at any rate) in most bookstores in the
new age, philosophy, or similar sections. The Church of Satan can be contacted
at:
Church of Satan
P.O. Box 210082
San Fransisco, CA 94121
$100 will get you a lifetime membership. Contrary to popular belief, the church
is not tax-exempt.
There is a perennial debate in alt.satanism as to whether or not the term
'Satanism' is appropriate for the church's beliefs, due to its atheistic
stance. While I personally consider the label somewhat misleading, the Church
of Satan appears to be well-established and its use of the word is probably
here to stay, although it is not the *only* definition.
5. You people aren't real Satanists.
A popular image of Satanism is that of a group of individuals meeting secretly
to perform blood rites involving human sacrifice, cannibalism, and molestation
of children. This idea is encouraged by the proliferation of 'true crime' books
detailing alleged Satanic sacrifices. To date, there is no evidence I know of
to support such a belief. The few 'Satanic crimes' known to have been commited
were motivated by more prosaic desires--any Satanic element was peripheral.
In fact, christianity has, historically and today, been a far bloodier
religion (see Xian Crimes FAQ).
6. _The Bible_ says...
Many Satanists--myself for example--are Satanists because they have read _The
Bible_, carefully considered all of its contents, and come to the conclusion
that it, and the claims of xianity, are unbelievable, repulsive, and
hypocritical. I have dedicated my life to ridding the world of this menace.
Repeated posts on alt.satanism to the effect that following _The Bible_ and its
childish God is my only hope of salvation only serve to reinforce my decision.
7. For the Christians among us...
Quite often, members of fundamentallist christian groups see fit to post
various evangelical messages in alt.satanism. The reason for this is not
clear. It has been suggested by various members of this net, who I shall
lump under the convenient category,"Satanist"; that the reason for this
posturing is that many, perhaps most Born-Again christian types are closet
masochists. It has also been suggested that christians need to save a certain
number of souls to get a good seat in paradise, similar in spirit to selling
candy-bars or magazines to fund various extra-curricular activities in school.
Presumably Satanist souls, being sold to the devil already, are worth more
points. While these theories have some merit, considering the teachings of
their (allegedly) chosen religion, an attempt should be made to be open minded
enough to see their side of things.
Many Christians, when asked why they do this, respond something to the effect
that it is chairity, something they do out of the goodness of their hearts,
out of concern for people etc. etc... Well, if the christian is really
concerned with people, why not preach to those who have not heard the message?
Most "Satanists" are well aquainted with the messages of christianity. They
have been preached to ad-infinitum, and are fed up with it. That is part of the
reason they are Satanists instead of plain- old agnostics. Many Satanists are
angered by such posts, and justifiably so.
Now consider this: you will never convert a satanist over USENET. You either
1) are too infuriating
2) look like a fool
There is NO logical reason to convert to christianity. The only appeals are to
the emotions, and as stated before they either look foolish or infuriating.
Things like, "But Jesus LOVES you; he died for your sins!" or
"Your soul is in danger!!" are appeals to guilt and fear respectively; not
reason. As most Satanists have chosen this path out of reason, these appeals
will never work. As for those Satanists who are so for emotional reasons, their
minds are as closed as that of the Born-again christian.
Perhaps, if indeed preaching is done for humanitarian, and not egotistical
or masochistic reasons, your energies are better spent educating those who
know little of your faith; those born atheistic, communists, buddists etc.
If, as suspected, your purposes are more egotistical (look reverand; I
converted a Satanist!) forget it. There are no "lost souls," waiting to be
found, in this community. For the masochistically inclined, we suggest
self-flagelation. It costs less disk space, is probobly more satisfying, and
is certainly less offensive to the general public...
otherwise;
GROWL! BOOGA BOOGA!
HASTUR ASTAROTH LEVAITHAN ISHTAR!!!!!!!!!
XILKA XILKA!
BESA BESA!
go away already...
8. Recommended reading.
_The Satanic Bible_ by Anton Szander Lavey.
This is the only book written by a Satanist with a coherent presentation of any
form of Satanic philosophy.
_Satan Wants You_ by Arthur Lyons.
An excellent book giving a brief history of Satanism and an overview of
Satanism today. Well written and researched. He was written another book, _The
Second Coming_, which I have not had the pleasure of reading.
_ABRASAX#4_
A magazine published by the American Gnostic Church. Issue #4 is dedicated to
Satan & satanic matters generally. They can be reached at
PO BOX 1219
Corpus Christi,TX 78403-1219 (this is an old adress-I have not checked yet)
_The Occult_ by Colin Wilson
An excellent unbiased introduction to the subject.
_Cosmic Trigger_ by Robert A. Wilson
This book describes various initiations and occult phenomena experienced
by Mr. Wilson. Mr Wilson has had a great influence on 20th century occultism,
and his books should be read by any serious student of the occult.
_Apocalypse Culture_ collected by Adam Parfey
A shocking work, depicting the worldviews of various "fringe" sects and
individuals, ranging from necrophilliacs to ultra-right wing christians.
The Collected Works of H.P. Lovecraft
Excellent "satanic" fiction.
_Snapping; America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change_ by Flo Conway
& Jim Siegelman; an interesting work utilizing information theory in the study
of sudden personality change as occurs in religious cults, and the "Born-Again"
phenomenon.
_The Dead Sea Scrolls_ there are many good books on this subject for those
who need to debunk christianity historically as well as philosophically.
among them;
_Dead Sea Scrolls & the Bible_ by Roland E Murphy (a Roman Catholic at that)
1968
_A Crack in the Jar; What ancient Jewish Documents tell us about the New
Testament_ by Niel Fujita (also a Christian scholar) 1986
_The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth_ by John Allegro (one of the
original Dead Sea Scholars) 1984
Note than all of the above scholars are of the old school of scroll study.
While all do a good job of debunking Xtianity, the latest generation of
scholarly works is even more damning.
What *not* to read.
There are a number of books oout today purporting to cover the topic of
Satanism, focusing on the alleged criminal aspect. These book suffer seriously
from credulity. They are usually located in the non-fiction or true-crime
sections of bookstores, and are easily identified by their lurid covers and
sensationalist claims. Particularly guilty authors include Bob Larson and Mike
Warnke. While these books may be read for entertainment value, I strongly urge
you seek another source for serious information.
-------------------slice with broken bottle glass------------------------------
688...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Message-ID: <1992Oct06....@microsoft.com>
>In article <92279.255...@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J02...@LMSC5.IS.LM
>Didn't your god give us free will so we could choose our own path?
As an outsider looking in, it would appear as if deep down inside of you,
you really do belive in Jesus. After all you yourself are admitting that he
gave you the free will to choose. This is just an observation.
Alex
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
Question # 9 "If you are a Satanist you must believe in Satan, _and_ God,
right?"
Wrong. Most organized Satanist groups are atheistic or animistic in nature.
It is likely that the majority of Satanists are, in fact atheists. Satan
is a convenient archetype. There are some Satanists who do believe in spirits.
It is safe to say that, were a Satanist convinced that there was indeed a
Jehovah type god, SHe would not follow the tenets of this god as set down in
the quaran or bible, due to disgust with the aformentioned documents, tenets
and traditions. This is yet another reason certain people refer to themselves
as "Satanists" as opposed to "atheistic humanists". So, in fact, this
observation/question is quite besides the point.
FAQable or what?
-Scott
Tim Fleehart
>In article <92279.255...@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J02...@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>
>>WORK When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No.of Copies
>>============================================================================
>>New Testement 40-100AD 125AD 25yrs. over 24,000
> this date is woefully incorrect. The 24000 figure is about
>24001 too high. There were _no_ copies in existance at that date, unless
>Mr Colvin has one in his basement
>
>>Homer (Illiad) 900BC 400BC 500yrs. 643
> ^^^^^
> Also misleading. The Illiad was much more famous in its time than the NT.
>>
>>AUTHOR When Written Earliest Copy Timespan No. of Copies
>>============================================================================
>>Caesar 100-44BC 900AD 1,000yrs. 10
>>Plato(Tetralogies) 427-347BC 900AD 1200 yrs. 7
>>Aristotle 384-322BC 1100AD 1,400 yrs. 49
>
>Same with these figures. Which Ceasar & what book pray tell? Aristotle was
>taught for thousands of years before this. There is much historical data,
>including chroniclers of the times who mention these thinkers.
>There is little historical mention of biblical writings untill @300 AD
Consider also the world population at the times these works were most
popular when you try to show 'importance by number of copies'.
What is number of copies anyway? Number of copies from this date?
You don't remember hearing about that library in egypt that was torched
destroying many origial or last-surviving copy of works of the above authors
do you? Maybe this has something to do with the numner in the "copies"
column... Were they smote by god?
>>Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions. Syraic and Latin
>>versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
> ^^^^^
>Oh, so now the NT was written _before_ Jesus' birth. Sounds about right for a
>fictional charachter...
Oops, they're gonna get him for that little slip...
>>In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
>>curate transmissions from the older Greek texts. There are 764 lines in doubt
>>in Homer's Illiad.
>
>All 24000 manuscripts huh? What if, say, all 24000 were copied from each other?
>This is how things were done in the old days of Monk/scribes...
...modern printing presses can do much better...
Tim
CCS...@psuvm.psu.edu
yeah, anyway, I got a report to do on Satanic murder, (aka occult killings).
You know...go find someone and kill them for a rejuvenation spell.
So, how badly should I scare the class, i'm confident I could do a good job.
I could bring out some daggers...it would work,really.
I was also thinking on the lines of suicide (not me personally, i still wanna
see the great and powerfull cluthulu...yeah, anyway, maybe a story on why some
whom are in various occult/religions, etc commit suicide.
I'm sure someone has some ideas...
gersha
smitty.
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
I've got a pregnant Idea (as usual). Why don't you do it on Xtian ritual
killings? It should be easier to find references & examples. You do great
disservice to the truth by spreading the lies of the xtian orthodoxy.
I suppose you actually buy into the "troubled teen listens to Ozzy & kills his
parents" bit...
You are all Cthulhu food!
-Scott
CCS...@psuvm.psu.edu
--oh please....
>I've got a pregnant Idea (as usual). Why don't you do it on Xtian ritual
>killings? It should be easier to find references & examples. You do great
>disservice to the truth by spreading the lies of the xtian orthodoxy.
>I suppose you actually buy into the "troubled teen listens to Ozzy & kills his
>parents" bit...
I spread no lies. However, you touched upon something that I was thinking
today. I could do the speech on how religion and culture shapes people.
Primarily focus on Christian suicide, and cultural, for ex.jap. in WW2.From
this, I could touch on satanism and other religions.
__ _/|
\ o.O' kill the cat, kill the cat, in clohululululul....ok, i admit
=(___)= this is in bad taste. It's kind of how your reply made me feel
U Really Scott, I expect more than a petty blame on xtains.
Don't discredit your obvious knowledge by blaming someone else.
*****************************
Do troubled teens listen to "hard stuff"?I suppose that some do. However
this report is not on murder, it's on suicide. Perhaps today I will look at
some phychology books to find out behavior pattern, and see if troubled
people listen to music that fits their mood.
gersha,
smitty
Tim Fleehart
Credere diem vs. credere in diem.
Credere in diabolum.
(But then my latin is as good as my ForTran...I have little use for dead
languages.)
Tim Fleehart
>Caananites worshiped Baal?
Which Ba'al? Ba'al Peor, Ba'al Zebub... ? So god gave the land of the
caananites to the isrealites because the former didn't worship him? Sounds
like justification for the spanish rape of central and south america..."They
are heathens, they are pagans..." sigh...
>As you said David was punished. The son born out
>of that relationship died. Scott, I don't know if you have any kids or not
>but if you ever do, and you ever live longer than one of your children, you
>may know then know the anguish David felt when his son died. Oh, but this
>is the Bible. It's untrue! Scott, when you have a kid, kill it, and see what
>the mother says.
Yeah... Still it's a case of god slaughtering an innocent to teach someone
else a lesson. Still dispicable.
>>I believe Mao Tse Tung's book has been read by more people; see the book of
>>lists.
>
>Tung's book is no longer in use. The Bible is.
So is "Grimm's fairy tails"... Your point?
>Prove they existed. BTW, you need to apply the same rules you apply to the
>Bible.
>...
>Forget any archeological artifacts. They could have been orchestrated by
>the Timothy Leary, Rush Limbaugh, and Ted Kennedy.
Uh... we don't disallow allow archeological artifacts...
We use things like dinosaur bones... to discount the bible's account of
creation...
>1 COR 2:14 - But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God;
>for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they
>are spiritually appraised.
"You are obviously not intelligent enough to see the truth of these
words."... Logical fallacy.
>1 COR 1:22 - For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom;
>(think you search for wisdom and there's nothing wrong with that).
>
>Scott or anybody for that matter, what evidence do you require in order to
>believe the Bible?
All or part? There is evidence that some parts of the bible are true.
There is no evidence that other parts are true. Because part of it is true,
it does not follow that all of it is true.
Tim Fleehart
>
>>Didn't your god give us free will so we could choose our own path?
>
>Yes, that's why I prefer OS/2 and Unix over MSDOS and Windows.
Good for you.
>>We have chosen our path, please go away.
>
>When you're finished bashing Christianity and Christ, I will.
We don't generally bash christianity until it is shoved in our face...
Consider this...
Bes
: loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu () wrote:
: >
: > representations of Moses. 2 of the 3 have horns.
: > p375 fig. 9-40 Biblical illustration...
: > p652 fig. 17-20 Michealangelo's "Moses" statue (quite magnificent actually)
: >
: > On cursory examination I found no explanation for the horns in the text, though
: > interestingly, in the biblical illustration, Aaron, next to Moses, has none.
: >
: > ye biblical scholar and servante of Cthulhu...
: > -Scott<<
I believe that in the field of the exsoteric, representation of a hero or a
god with horns imply "divine inspiration".
Most gods or daemons which sport a set of horns or a combination of several,
in magic represent divine power, inspiration, wisdom and transubstantiation.
Moses, not Aaron, was transubstantiated by his tete-a-tete with God on Mt
Sinai, therefore "changed" by divine proximity. You will notice that the
statue of Moses by Michaelangelo holds the tablets of Sinai, that is to
imply after divine encounter.
Isis in Egyptian myth, is represented with a chair on her head, yet after
her encounter with Ra and learning of his secret name she is shown with
cow's horns and a disk on her head instead of the throne.
Bes
Topics of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe
I was always taught that the reason that Moses has been represented as having
horns is because of an error in translation..As told to me...when Michaelangelo
was doing research to get a good description about how Moses would look when he
descended from Mt. Sinai he came across a word in Hebrew that he didn't know the
meaning to so he approached a Rabbi and asked him the meaning of the word.
Unfortunately he didn't tell the Rabbi the context the word was found in, and
the Rabbi told him that the word meant horns (in Hebrew words tend to have more
than one meaning ex: Shalom=Hello, goodbye, and Peace). The word that
Michaelangelo was asking about also means "rays of light", which was what it
meant in that particular instance (Moses' face was surrounded by rays of light
because he had just been in the presence of G-d). By the time Michaelangelo
found out that he had been given the wrong translation it was too late and his
sculpture of Moses was already complete...Oh well...
Anyhow...that's what I've always been taught!
TTFN
Wendy
rtsu...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
There's an interesting explanation I read of the passage in question (why Moses
was changed in the first place, not why it was mistranslated as "horns"), in a
book called _Who Wrote the Bible?_ I have no idea how accurate it may be. If
one-half the book is correct, _The Bible_ is the biggest smear/PR campaign in
history, which makes me tend to agree with it somewhat.
--Semhaza
"American fundamentalism is first and foremost a movement dedicated to making
women subservient to the ambitions of their husbands, brothers, and sons."
--Joe Barnhart, "Shocking New Testament Views of the Family"
in Free Inquiry (have you read your secular humanist magazine today?)
Your Heinous
to be of a Xian nature.
Is it possible to discuss Satanism here, or shall we just yell our beliefs
back and forth to the Evangelical contingent, until one side gets
a sore throat and gives up?
--Judex--
Your Heinous
Where? I can find very little of actual Xian-bashing.
Besides, this is obviously the place to do this.
Aren't there some homeless you could feed, or something worthwhile?
--Judex--
Your Heinous
I wish more Xians would remember that Jesus probably masturbated, and that
God lets us make our own choices. I refuse to submit to anything because
"God Demands It!". He probably doesn't even if he exists. If he/she/it really
wanted to demand something, I am not hard to find, and God probably knows
my schedule.
--Judex--
Your Heinous
>Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
> --oh please....
>
>>I've got a pregnant Idea (as usual). Why don't you do it on Xtian ritual
>>killings? It should be easier to find references & examples. You do great
>>disservice to the truth by spreading the lies of the xtian orthodoxy.
>>I suppose you actually buy into the "troubled teen listens to Ozzy & kills his
>>parents" bit...
>this report is not on murder, it's on suicide. Perhaps today I will look at
>some phychology books to find out behavior pattern, and see if troubled
>people listen to music that fits their mood.
> gersha,
> smitty
>
I really doubt that Satan relies on music to do his biddng. Too openm
to interpretation and not a real effective way of spreading a message.
That's what books are for.
Yes, a lot of Troubled teens listen to Heavy Metal. So do a lot of adults,
and normal kids. Pleae refrain from the obvious fallacy of showing
a series of Teen suicides and then pointing out that they all listened to Heavy
Metal. So do lots of peole from all sorts of backgrounds.
I was a troubled youth. I am a troubled adult. But I won't kill
myself because I thought I heard Rob Halford tell me to.
--Judex--
Your Heinous
>In article <1992Oct6.0...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
>loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu () wrote:
>>
>on
>moses are acutally due to a translation error that has been traced back to
>a specific translation before the Ren.
How do you translate a picture?
it is probably just bad religious art, or at least that is the standard
excuse.
I went to a wedding in a small, fairly modern catholic church in Iowa.
Among other interesting points was a depiction of Jesus getting married
to an unidentified female, above the altar; and a picture of one
of the stations of the cross, showing the apostles lifting a living Jesus
off the cross.
I was told to ignore these blatant orthodoxy errors. It was just
bad religious art...
I wonder....
--Judex--
Your Heinous
Looks like more of a logical argument maneuver to me. Whether the Xtian
God gave us free will or not, is irrelevant. Xians believe that he did,
but apparetnly they believe there was a catch. I do not have to believe
in "God" to believe in free will or predestination, or anything else.
If god gave us free will, he should really remind a great number of
Xians exactly what that means.
--Judex--
Your Heinous
--Judex--
Ray Rich
>
> Sorry to break up the interesting topics that relate to this newsgroup...
>yeah, anyway, I got a report to do on Satanic murder, (aka occult killings).
>You know...go find someone and kill them for a rejuvenation spell.
>
> So, how badly should I scare the class, i'm confident I could do a good job.
>I could bring out some daggers...it would work,really.
>
>I was also thinking on the lines of suicide (not me personally, i still wanna
>see the great and powerfull cluthulu...yeah, anyway, maybe a story on why some
>whom are in various occult/religions, etc commit suicide.
>I'm sure someone has some ideas...
> smitty.
I have an idea! Actually do some reading and discover that very few
violent crimes can be attributed to organized Satanism. You'll have much
better luck with Xianity.
Oh yeah, you could also find the proper spelling for Cthulhu.
Raymond H. Rich
Ray Rich
> Do troubled teens listen to "hard stuff"?I suppose that some do. However
>this report is not on murder, it's on suicide. Perhaps today I will look at
>some phychology books to find out behavior pattern, and see if troubled
>people listen to music that fits their mood.
> gersha,
> smitty
If it is the mood of the music that inspires individuals to commit
suicide, I would suspect that Country Music would be a major influence.
A good portion of the stuff is depressing (lost my wife, I'm an alcoholic,
can't get a job, etc.). Most of metal and rap isn't depressing, but
angry and/or bitter and often with every right to be so. Troubled people
look for music that says what they cannot say themselves due to being
oppressed either by parents, religious groups, or other organizations.
Raymond H. Rich
loc...@titan.ucc.umass.edu
>Good point on the hard rock bit. (But don't use the word normal...can't
>stand that word...). Thank you all for giving me something to go on.
> I'm trying to find the relationship between what we do, and our
>personality. It kind of relates to a meeting I attended last week, on men and
>pornography. They see all this stuff, get a subconscious idea, and go rape
>somebody. Personally I don't agree with the above statement.
Neither do I. An idiot at my school is spending all kinds of federal grant
money to try to establish a link between music videos and violence against
women. Personally I don't give a pair of foetid dingoes kidneys about music
videos, but this is another example of how dubious dangers are being used to
take our freedoms away (like the "war on drugs" for example.
A comment on modern feminism.(y'know; those women who say any sexual
intercourse where the man has an erection is rape)
Basically my argument against this type of thinking is that modern feminism
seeks to disempower men rather than empower women (like in the old days i.e.
70's-60's) R.A.Wilson says it better than I;
"In the 60s & 70s radical feminists tried to make women more like men. In the
80s & 90s radical feminists try to make men like women."
call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that the old-time feminists did much
more for women than this new breed of feminist thinker has done (or will do)
>This will be a fun report....I always like to freak people out who are so
>comfortable and seem to know all there is to know.
Me too, one of my fav's...
> later, gersha,
whats a gersha?
> Smitty
part on the level...
-Scott
CCS...@psuvm.psu.edu
stand that word...). Thank you all for giving me something to go on.
I'm trying to find the relationship between what we do, and our
personality. It kind of relates to a meeting I attended last week, on men and
pornography. They see all this stuff, get a subconscious idea, and go rape
somebody. Personally I don't agree with the above statement.
This will be a fun report....I always like to freak people out who are so
comfortable and seem to know all there is to know.
later, gersha,
Smitty
CCS...@psuvm.psu.edu
Of course,If I ever use that name on one of my seals and misspell
it, I might have a small problem...but anyway...
Reading? Bah, I'd rather have opinion on something such as this, I don't
need to help alter history any more than it already is...too much false
data....
later, gersha
Smitty
long live Caaron.
Keeper of the Keys
Maker of Seals.
CCS...@psuvm.psu.edu
the lecture if playgirls should be banned as well....she told me no because
playgirl's readers are mostly gay...I asked if it mattered, since playgirl
has the same ads and stereotype in it, or at least the same style...but
you know I never got an answer....isn't it great to live in a world that
has so many people who know everything?
later
******************************************************
| o
| | This thing on the right is o
| (0) (0) | a. A bad drawing of a persons face o
| o | B. A person's face who just woke up o
| <------> | C. Quantum Physics diagram o
| | D. A seal of god. o
| E. a bunch of "o's" in a line. o********
| It's usually wise to pick the most logical answer. But |
| you also must really understand the question, before |
| you can answer. Follow the same format in your posts. |
| -Disagreement: an act that helps people to learn. |
| ccs105.psuvm.psu.edu |
**************************************************************
I think i like my other sig better....