/ping DH
Comm
could have easilydone the leg work yourself long ago, when a url was
presented. Do not pester me with questions. I won't see them! You made it
to my killfile.
3) What is the Satan that SR espouses?
==================================================
The Satan in the Dark Tradition we espouse is Sat and Tan, Being and
Becoming, and we don't accept the Judeo-Christian concepts for "Satan" at
all. We are making a pun out of Sat and Tan and we are the first
organization to ever do that. Then again, if what we know as the Boundless
Chaotic Darkness is Nyarlathotep in our own older non-standard lingo, and if
Nyarlathotep is Satan, it stands to reason that we are talking about a Satan
that is not what any Judaic, Christian or Islamic people think it is. The
SR org sticks to standard words, even if they are foreign words, they are
recognizable to most people reading this.
This system is from an ancient tradition that is 1. genuinely Left Hand Path
of the kind having nothing whatsoever to do with "breaking silly taboos," 2.
has a Boundless Darkness as the Prime Force, 3. has a "flaming light" within
the Darkness that flashes out and becomes all things due to the Urge of the
Boundless Darkness, 4. has that Dark Flame as being within people, IF they
let it flow. Only people with that Flame within can self actualize, if they
choose to do that.
Here are examples: Sat: The one ever-present Reality in the infinite world;
the divine essence which IS, but cannot be said to "exist" because it is
Absoluteness, or Being-ness Itself. Satta: the One and Sole Existence.
Sattva: Understanding; quiescence in divine knowledge; a Bodhisattva is a
person that possesses this. Satya: Supreme Truth. Satya Yuga: the Golden Age
of the age of truth, actually the first Yuga, but often equated with the
Trita Yuga (last age). Tan means to "stretch forth" to "become." Words such
as Tantra, Tanmatri have the root word "tan" in them.
As for Sat and Tan, legitimate words: It is highly possible that the Hebrews
committed a cultural inversion on the word Sat, since they did have contact
with Persians who definitely DID invert ALL the ancient Sanskrit (Shivaite)
concepts. The Hebrews did not invert the word Tan because the Tanaim, in
Hebrew, are those who "know what the angels know." The Tanaim are the True
Magi. This type of Sat/Tan Dark Doctrines can be seen in various
organizations that run in various ways, localized or loosely connected. This
type of Satanism includes the Pythagorean system on the pentacle (the
pentalphas), which correspond to the Five Dharmas, and the pentamychos
system, which corresponds to the fearsome or towo aspects that defend the
Dharmas or Five Principles. The Five principles, as seen in nature, are
parts of what the Dark Force IN Nature does, as it permeates and motivates
all of nature. More on exactly what we define for our organization can be
seen in "The Nine Postulates of Satan" at this location
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/9-sat-tan.html
==================================================
3.1) What does this SR Satanism, or Dark Tradition basically consist of?
==================================================
The Dark Tradition is an emanation doctrine about the Boundless Darkness,
(No Name, Aditi, Ain Soph, Apeiron, Brahman, Thatness, Nyarlathotep, etc.)
and the Flame, (Viraj, Vajra, Logos, Chi, Ki, etc.). The Flame is in that
All Pervading Darkness and from that, there is the doctrine of Being and
Becoming.
1. Unknown - Boundless Darkness (or Thatness). - That which is Formless
(Arupa).
2. Non-Being and Being (Asat and Sat). The intermediate being-state is
BECOMING or stretching forth (Tan). This happens out of Necessity.
3. Emanation of a Light or a Flame as a 7-fold Formed (Rupa) and Ordered
substance that Became all material (space/time, matter/energy) things.
4. Infusion and permeation of the Darkness as a 5-fold formless chaotic
"force" of some kind, into the 7 which, in turn, drives all things on to
ever greater change, complexity and diversity, relentlessly driving it on to
change, to Become. It is from the 5-fold that we get the Pentacle - based on
the Orphic/Pythagorean original doctrine of "Tartaros." (Tartaros did not
mean "hell" originally).
This Doctrine is totally unlike a creation doctrine; it is very much unlike
paganism with many gods and goddess and half-godling "children of" the
gods/goddesses. It is not dualistic at all. It is not for everyone! One is
either Of It, or they are not.
In addition, there are elaborations: how that darkness is always categorized
in 5 distinct ways as it acts on "the nature" around us and how the Flame is
within us as Kundalini. How the Flame comes into living beings from the All
Pervading Darkness, goes through living things as a Flame or kind of "Light"
and then returns to that One Darkness. How the All Pervading Darkness itself
never increases or decreases all the time this goes on. There are also
doctrines about what lacks this Flame within. There is no judgment on such
people. It is just that the Tradition is not told to them - hence it is
esoteric. (Times have changed). I could say it this way: Aditi, Vach, Viraj
(Vajra), or Asat, Sat and Tan are the same things, recognizable to anyone
that knows this, as Kether, Binah (Upper Shekina), Hochmah. Same things.
.dh
>One last time - and this will be the last time I spell this out, tho you
>could have easilydone the leg work yourself long ago, when a url was
>presented. Do not pester me with questions. I won't see them! You made it
>to my killfile.
>
>3) What is the Satan that SR espouses?
>==================================================
>The Satan in the Dark Tradition we espouse is Sat and Tan, Being and
>Becoming,
That's nothing. You might as well be saying "blah blah blah".
>and we don't accept the Judeo-Christian concepts for "Satan" at
>all.
That's because your supposed spiritual concept is NOT one
since it doesn't involve any type of spirit at all. You get a nice
big DUH! for that one.
>We are making a pun out of Sat and Tan and we are the first
>organization to ever do that.
That doesn't mean you're the only ones to have considered
doing it, it just means you're the only ones stupid enough to
think it might somehow be a good idea.
>Then again, if what we know as the Boundless
>Chaotic Darkness is Nyarlathotep in our own older non-standard lingo, and if
>Nyarlathotep is Satan, it stands to reason that we are talking about a Satan
>that is not what any Judaic, Christian or Islamic people think it is.
Of course not since what you're referring to is NOTHING, not
Satan. Another big DUUUUH!!! for Tani.
>The
>SR org sticks to standard words, even if they are foreign words, they are
>recognizable to most people reading this.
>
>This system is from an ancient tradition that is 1. genuinely Left Hand Path
>of the kind having nothing whatsoever to do with "breaking silly taboos," 2.
>has a Boundless Darkness as the Prime Force, 3. has a "flaming light" within
>the Darkness that flashes out and becomes all things due to the Urge of the
>Boundless Darkness, 4. has that Dark Flame as being within people, IF they
>let it flow. Only people with that Flame within can self actualize, if they
>choose to do that.
>
>Here are examples: Sat: The one ever-present Reality in the infinite world;
>the divine essence
You don't have anything divine since you don't have any sort of
spirit involvment at all, much less any divinity. You "have" as I
continue to point out: NOTHING. IF there's any sort of spirituality
to any of your shit it's the influence Satan is having on you people
and whoever else with the stupid association you feel that you
came up with. Almost certainly the most "spiritual" thing there
could be about all of it would be his influence on your little mind.
Duh again Tani...duh again...
Comm
understand a word of it. But, anyway,
Darkness of any kind, especially the Abyssal, Original, One-Darkness we
speak of, is misunderstood, maligned, seen as evil and shunned due to
misperceptions. The true meaning of just what this Darkness is, is what
needs to be guarded, preserved, if you will, and explained. It is out of
this One-Darkness that the Flame first arose, and from that Flame all else
came into Being. Without this Darkness, there is no Flame! Other names for
the Flame are Vajra, Dorje, Logos.
Proposition I: The Emanated Universe
Creation, as it is understood today, posits the pre-existence of a
"creator," which formed the universe out of nothing. In other words,
creationists believe that at the beginning of time there was an uncreated
being who made everything, including people, planets, rocks, trees,
everything, out of absolutely nothing by some fiat of omnipotent power.
Creation doctrines also teach a linear view of time, that is, that time
progresses in a straight line from beginning to end, there being nothing
before or after the duration of the timeline. The Guardians of Darkness
rejects the theories of creationists.
The doctrine of emanation holds that universe is a cyclical (coming and
going forever) event, periodically entering into dormancy or "sleep," and
re-emerging into manifestation (appearance). The view of time in the
emanation doctrine is cyclical, meaning, for the most part, that while there
are relative "beginnings" and "endings" of certain and particular phases or
periods of activities and states within the boundless expanses of
space/time, including the bang/crunch of galaxies, there is no absolute
beginning or end before or after where nothing exists.
Therefore the Guardians of Darkness hold as our first Fundamental
Proposition that the universe and all contained therein is not the creation
of any "god" or individual entity, but is the product and fruition of its
own inherent forces and principles interacting upon one another throughout
infinite duration, and that the quintessential reality within all manifested
appearance is eternal and unchanging in nature, while its many forms never
cease to change. Our view is called "emanationism" with regards to the
origins of the universe. This view might, today, agree with modern
cosmogony, e.g., the Big Bang, but the doctrine that explains this is very
ancient.
Proposition II: Darkness Paramount
The second proposition holds that all ordered manifestation appearing in the
universe possesses an inherent tendency towards Darkness and Chaos as its
natural and primordial state. This is expressed scientifically in the second
and third laws of thermodynamics, also known as entropy, which states that
all physical matter inevitably evolves towards an undifferentiated state of
inert uniformity. All states of existence, therefore, which depend upon
order or established measurable patterns inherently contribute to the
increase of entropy in the universe. For the technicalities and the actual
formula, see http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=13&aid=110
In other words, since it is shown by science that everything in the universe
naturally moves towards a state of disorder, or what may be termed
"universal non-identity," it is our proposition that all things naturally
seek to return to their original and primordial state of Dark Oneness.
Proposition III: Universal Divinity
The Guardians of Darkness reject all notions of an external, anthropomorphic
(human-like) deity. In other words, there is no "personal god" presiding
over the universe dispensing rewards and punishments to those whom he deems
fit to receive them, and this also includes the savior "god-man" idea held
by Christianity and other religions.
We hold that every single entity in the universe, everything which has a
recognizable form, everywhere and at all times, is infused throughout every
fiber of its being with divinity, and that there is nothing whatsoever in
existence that is outside of, or is not utterly infused with, divinity. By
this proposition we do not mean to say that there is a form which contains a
divine principle, rather we say that the form and that which it contains are
equally divine. By "divine" we mean oneness with the eternal and parentless
essence of reality and existence.
Again, these fundamental propositions presented here are the basic outline
of our beliefs. Within these basic concepts inheres an immense number of
individual doctrines and ideas which may be fully explored and interpreted
by the individual.
pingin...@tani'sanidiot.net
>Don't know if you read it, but I can bet money you did not - and/or did not
>understand a word of it. But, anyway,
>
>Darkness of any kind, especially the Abyssal, Original, One-Darkness we
>speak of, is misunderstood, maligned, seen as evil and shunned due to
>misperceptions.
Original Darkness would be the period of "time" before there
was anything producing visible light, and you don't know any
more about that period than anyone else does, including me.
>The true meaning of just what this Darkness is, is what
>needs to be guarded, preserved, if you will, and explained.
I just explained it.
>It is out of
>this One-Darkness that the Flame first arose, and from that Flame all else
>came into Being. Without this Darkness, there is no Flame! Other names for
>the Flame are Vajra, Dorje, Logos.
The Big Bang.
>Proposition I: The Emanated Universe
>
>Creation, as it is understood today, posits the pre-existence of a
>"creator," which formed the universe out of nothing.
Not necessarily. If a being or beings just had influence on the
development of humans on this planet he/they could be considered
our creator, even if they have one themselves and he one, etc...
>In other words,
>creationists believe that at the beginning of time there was an uncreated
>being who made everything, including people, planets, rocks, trees,
>everything, out of absolutely nothing by some fiat of omnipotent power.
Not all of them you dishonest ass.
>Creation doctrines also teach a linear view of time, that is, that time
>progresses in a straight line from beginning to end, there being nothing
>before or after the duration of the timeline. The Guardians of Darkness
>rejects the theories of creationists.
So do some people who consider the possibility of creation.
>The doctrine of emanation holds that universe is a cyclical (coming and
>going forever) event, periodically entering into dormancy or "sleep," and
>re-emerging into manifestation (appearance).
The universe may be in cycles of expansion and contraction. As far
as a creator goes that can be a significant and interesting aspect to
take into consideration, but such possibilities our outside of your
comfort zone.
>The view of time in the
>emanation doctrine is cyclical, meaning, for the most part, that while there
>are relative "beginnings" and "endings" of certain and particular phases or
>periods of activities and states within the boundless expanses of
>space/time, including the bang/crunch of galaxies, there is no absolute
>beginning or end before or after where nothing exists.
>
>Therefore the Guardians of Darkness hold as our first Fundamental
>Proposition that the universe and all contained therein is not the creation
>of any "god" or individual entity, but is the product and fruition of its
>own inherent forces and principles interacting upon one another throughout
>infinite duration,
That's just a flowery way of saying "shit happens", which everyone
is aware of.
>and that the quintessential reality within all manifested
>appearance is eternal and unchanging in nature,
That's just referring to the structure of atoms and molecules.
>while its many forms never
>cease to change. Our view is called "emanationism" with regards to the
>origins of the universe. This view might, today, agree with modern
>cosmogony, e.g., the Big Bang, but the doctrine that explains this is very
>ancient.
It comes from the Hindu story about this all being the dream
of the creator Brahma who wakes up and goes back to sleep
from time to time, or something like that.
>Proposition II: Darkness Paramount
>
>The second proposition holds that all ordered manifestation appearing in the
>universe possesses an inherent tendency towards Darkness and Chaos as its
>natural and primordial state.
In Larry Niven stories the characters have a saying something
like: "The perversity of the universe tends towards a maximum".
>This is expressed scientifically in the second
>and third laws of thermodynamics, also known as entropy, which states that
>all physical matter inevitably evolves towards an undifferentiated state of
>inert uniformity. All states of existence, therefore, which depend upon
>order or established measurable patterns inherently contribute to the
>increase of entropy in the universe. For the technicalities and the actual
>formula, see http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=13&aid=110
>
>
>In other words, since it is shown by science that everything in the universe
>naturally moves towards a state of disorder, or what may be termed
>"universal non-identity," it is our proposition that all things naturally
>seek to return to their original and primordial state of Dark Oneness.
May be. We're sure lucky that electrons just happen to somehow
have the energy to keep orbiting around protons and neutrons for
hundreds of billions of years. Think how screwed we'd be if that ever
breaks down.
>Proposition III: Universal Divinity
>
>The Guardians of Darkness reject all notions of an external, anthropomorphic
>(human-like) deity. In other words, there is no "personal god" presiding
>over the universe dispensing rewards and punishments to those whom he deems
>fit to receive them, and this also includes the savior "god-man" idea held
>by Christianity and other religions.
Christians put their faith in one thing. You put your faith in something
else. Christians usually proudly declare their faith. People like yourself
usually cowardly and dishonestly, pathetically though amusingly, try to
deny your own.
>We hold that every single entity in the universe, everything which has a
>recognizable form, everywhere and at all times, is infused throughout every
>fiber of its being with divinity,
Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
>and that there is nothing whatsoever in
>existence that is outside of, or is not utterly infused with, divinity.
Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
>By
>this proposition we do not mean to say that there is a form which contains a
>divine principle, rather we say that the form and that which it contains are
>equally divine. By "divine" we mean oneness with the eternal and parentless
>essence of reality and existence.
It means NOTHING in other words, as I already pointed
out twice.
>Again, these fundamental propositions presented here are the basic outline
>of our beliefs. Within these basic concepts inheres an immense number of
>individual doctrines and ideas which may be fully explored and interpreted
>by the individual.
You believe shit just happens to happen to everything.
That sums up your entire belief in one sentence. I appreciate
you finally presenting the information though. You finally
backed up the claims you've been making, and though I
feel your beliefs are overly restricting in the extreme at least
you finally did back up what you've been talking about
with something. Congratulations on that much, Tani.
But! You always have to screw it up. You waited until
AFTER you plonked my ass before you finally tried to back
up what you're trying to talk about. You are a mess.
dh..@&^
<pinging_Tani@tani'sanidiot.net> wrote in message
news:a17ke4h92041o7940...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:42:30 -0400, "Comm" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't know if you read it, but I can bet money you did not - and/or did
>>not
>>understand a word of it. But, anyway,
>>
>>Darkness of any kind, especially the Abyssal, Original, One-Darkness we
>>speak of, is misunderstood, maligned, seen as evil and shunned due to
>>misperceptions.
>
> Original Darkness would be the period of "time" before there
> was anything producing visible light, and you don't know any
> more about that period than anyone else does, including me.
You are switching to science. This is about religion. I don't confuse the
two things.
>
>>The true meaning of just what this Darkness is, is what
>>needs to be guarded, preserved, if you will, and explained.
>
> I just explained it.
>
>>It is out of
>>this One-Darkness that the Flame first arose, and from that Flame all else
>>came into Being. Without this Darkness, there is no Flame! Other names for
>>the Flame are Vajra, Dorje, Logos.
>
> The Big Bang.
That's science. Vajra and Dorje and Logos are in the realm of religion. I
don't confuse the two.
>
>>Proposition I: The Emanated Universe
>>
>>Creation, as it is understood today, posits the pre-existence of a
>>"creator," which formed the universe out of nothing.
>
> Not necessarily. If a being or beings just had influence on the
> development of humans on this planet he/they could be considered
> our creator, even if they have one themselves and he one, etc...
I find it highly unlikely that advanced aliens had anything to do with life
on earth. However, maybe they did. Maybe the earth is 6000 years old, or
60,000 years old, maybe humans and dinosaurs were together (there ARE
footprints in some finds, all put on shelves). I'm not joking or mocking.
I don't know - but I tend to believe more on the side of the 4 billion year
old earth and natural evolution. It's a THEORY, David . Just a theory. I
find it interesting, eg, the Permian extinction information.
>
>>In other words,
>>creationists believe that at the beginning of time there was an uncreated
>>being who made everything, including people, planets, rocks, trees,
>>everything, out of absolutely nothing by some fiat of omnipotent power.
>
> Not all of them you dishonest ass.
Creationists do believe that. If ONE does not believe that, then he or she
is not part of the GROUP called "creationists." You are the ass - and you
are becoming identical to Howard with your insulting shit. Then you wonder
why I insult you back? HA! You are a mosquito.
>
>>Creation doctrines also teach a linear view of time, that is, that time
>>progresses in a straight line from beginning to end, there being nothing
>>before or after the duration of the timeline. The Guardians of Darkness
>>rejects the theories of creationists.
>
> So do some people who consider the possibility of creation.
Good for them. Btw, Newsflash a Jesuit wrote the essay you are criticizing.
I did NOT write it, but I agree with it. Obviously, he believes what he
wrote.
>
>>The doctrine of emanation holds that universe is a cyclical (coming and
>>going forever) event, periodically entering into dormancy or "sleep," and
>>re-emerging into manifestation (appearance).
>
> The universe may be in cycles of expansion and contraction. As far
> as a creator goes that can be a significant and interesting aspect to
> take into consideration, but such possibilities our outside of your
> comfort zone.
So you say. You have no idea what my "comfort zone" is - but you are
certainly sure you do, and you are Howardish obsessed with it. You have
become a defacto CoS member: stupid, rude, harassing, and obsessed with
Howard. You are becoming like them.
>
>>The view of time in the
>>emanation doctrine is cyclical, meaning, for the most part, that while
>>there
>>are relative "beginnings" and "endings" of certain and particular phases
>>or
>>periods of activities and states within the boundless expanses of
>>space/time, including the bang/crunch of galaxies, there is no absolute
>>beginning or end before or after where nothing exists.
>>
>>Therefore the Guardians of Darkness hold as our first Fundamental
>>Proposition that the universe and all contained therein is not the
>>creation
>>of any "god" or individual entity, but is the product and fruition of its
>>own inherent forces and principles interacting upon one another throughout
>>infinite duration,
>
> That's just a flowery way of saying "shit happens", which everyone
> is aware of.
It's outside your comfort zone. Mehh.
>
>>and that the quintessential reality within all manifested
>>appearance is eternal and unchanging in nature,
>
> That's just referring to the structure of atoms and molecules.
I don't mix science and religion.
>
>>while its many forms never
>>cease to change. Our view is called "emanationism" with regards to the
>>origins of the universe. This view might, today, agree with modern
>>cosmogony, e.g., the Big Bang, but the doctrine that explains this is very
>>ancient.
>
> It comes from the Hindu story about this all being the dream
> of the creator Brahma who wakes up and goes back to sleep
> from time to time, or something like that.
That above did not come from a Hindu.
Who is denying faith? Oh, I see, in Howardian fashion, you are denying MY
faith for me. I see.
>
>>We hold that every single entity in the universe, everything which has a
>>recognizable form, everywhere and at all times, is infused throughout
>>every
>>fiber of its being with divinity,
>
> Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
In Howardian fashion, you are claming to know what I disbelieve in? You
have no clue. You don't know me or anything about me. I posted tons of
urls with my own writings about DIVINITY on there. You didn't read them -
they were outside your "comfort zone in the view you WISH to take of me."
In true Howardian fashion, you have become - in fact - identical to them.
My stalkers, btw. You are even stalking NOW.
>
>>and that there is nothing whatsoever in
>>existence that is outside of, or is not utterly infused with, divinity.
>
> Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
I never said that. How dare you say that for me? You are being The Anti
Life - you have become it. Congratulations. Too much obsession with Howard
and now you are just like him.
>
>>By
>>this proposition we do not mean to say that there is a form which contains
>>a
>>divine principle, rather we say that the form and that which it contains
>>are
>>equally divine. By "divine" we mean oneness with the eternal and
>>parentless
>>essence of reality and existence.
>
> It means NOTHING in other words, as I already pointed
> out twice.
It's outside your comfort zone and way over your little Howardian head.
>
>>Again, these fundamental propositions presented here are the basic outline
>>of our beliefs. Within these basic concepts inheres an immense number of
>>individual doctrines and ideas which may be fully explored and interpreted
>>by the individual.
>
> You believe shit just happens to happen to everything.
> That sums up your entire belief in one sentence. I appreciate
> you finally presenting the information though. You finally
> backed up the claims you've been making, and though I
> feel your beliefs are overly restricting in the extreme at least
> you finally did back up what you've been talking about
> with something. Congratulations on that much, Tani.
>
> But! You always have to screw it up. You waited until
> AFTER you plonked my ass before you finally tried to back
> up what you're trying to talk about. You are a mess.
You are the mess, David. I posted numerous TONS of urls explaining a lot
more than just this . It was over your head. It was way outside your
comfort zone. You WANT me, NEED me, to be your enemy.
Sorry, I won't oblige you.
STOP STALKING ME. That's legal notice, OK? I'm taking that line from My
New Heroine.
ping...@tanishit.net
>
><pinging_Tani@tani'sanidiot.net> wrote in message
>news:a17ke4h92041o7940...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:42:30 -0400, "Comm" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't know if you read it, but I can bet money you did not - and/or did
>>>not
>>>understand a word of it. But, anyway,
>>>
>>>Darkness of any kind, especially the Abyssal, Original, One-Darkness we
>>>speak of, is misunderstood, maligned, seen as evil and shunned due to
>>>misperceptions.
>>
>> Original Darkness would be the period of "time" before there
>> was anything producing visible light, and you don't know any
>> more about that period than anyone else does, including me.
>
>You are switching to science. This is about religion. I don't confuse the
>two things.
What you mean is you can't put them together. If your supposed,
mindless, dark spiritual ray which is neither dark, spiritual nor a ray
really does exist, then it's science regardless of whether it's religious
or not. If the Christian God and Jesus etc exist it's science. If we're
really just in the dreams of Brahma it's still science... If you can't
understand that much then you'll never get anywhere near a realistic
interpretation, no doubt.
>>>The true meaning of just what this Darkness is, is what
>>>needs to be guarded, preserved, if you will, and explained.
>>
>> I just explained it.
>>
>>>It is out of
>>>this One-Darkness that the Flame first arose, and from that Flame all else
>>>came into Being. Without this Darkness, there is no Flame! Other names for
>>>the Flame are Vajra, Dorje, Logos.
>>
>> The Big Bang.
>
>That's science. Vajra and Dorje and Logos are in the realm of religion. I
>don't confuse the two.
You can't relate them because you can't think of it realistically.
That has been the reason the whole time Tani and it's always going
to be unless you learn to think realistically.
>>>Proposition I: The Emanated Universe
>>>
>>>Creation, as it is understood today, posits the pre-existence of a
>>>"creator," which formed the universe out of nothing.
>>
>> Not necessarily. If a being or beings just had influence on the
>> development of humans on this planet he/they could be considered
>> our creator, even if they have one themselves and he one, etc...
>
>I find it highly unlikely that advanced aliens had anything to do with life
>on earth. However, maybe they did. Maybe the earth is 6000 years old, or
>60,000 years old, maybe humans and dinosaurs were together (there ARE
>footprints in some finds, all put on shelves). I'm not joking or mocking.
>I don't know - but I tend to believe more on the side of the 4 billion year
>old earth and natural evolution.
I do too. It's part of thinking realistically. If God exists it seems pretty
clear that he the Earth is billions of years old and he made use of the
evolutionary method of developing life, which seems like a good way
to do it.
>It's a THEORY, David . Just a theory. I
>find it interesting, eg, the Permian extinction information.
It makes sense that he would eliminate some designs in favor of
other ones. That's thinking realistically.
>>>In other words,
>>>creationists believe that at the beginning of time there was an uncreated
>>>being who made everything, including people, planets, rocks, trees,
>>>everything, out of absolutely nothing by some fiat of omnipotent power.
>>
>> Not all of them you dishonest ass.
>
>Creationists do believe that. If ONE does not believe that, then he or she
>is not part of the GROUP called "creationists."
It's still the same thing with you not thinking realistically. If we think
realistically about how God could have created things, evolution must
certainly be considered.
>You are the ass
You are the ass too.
> - and you
>are becoming identical to Howard with your insulting shit. Then you wonder
>why I insult you back?
No, you started insulting me for considering the possibility of
God's existence.
>HA! You are a mosquito.
>>
>>>Creation doctrines also teach a linear view of time, that is, that time
>>>progresses in a straight line from beginning to end, there being nothing
>>>before or after the duration of the timeline. The Guardians of Darkness
>>>rejects the theories of creationists.
>>
>> So do some people who consider the possibility of creation.
>
>Good for them. Btw, Newsflash a Jesuit wrote the essay you are criticizing.
>I did NOT write it, but I agree with it. Obviously, he believes what he
>wrote.
All it says is that shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence
of any being(s) superior to humans. May be. But then again, maybe not.
>>>The doctrine of emanation holds that universe is a cyclical (coming and
>>>going forever) event, periodically entering into dormancy or "sleep," and
>>>re-emerging into manifestation (appearance).
>>
>> The universe may be in cycles of expansion and contraction. As far
>> as a creator goes that can be a significant and interesting aspect to
>> take into consideration, but such possibilities our outside of your
>> comfort zone.
>
>So you say. You have no idea what my "comfort zone" is
I know it doesn't include thinking realistically about the possibility
of God's existence, which is one reason you can't think realistically
about the possibility of God's existence.
> - but you are
>certainly sure you do,
You PROVE that you can't think realistically about it. Even when
I encourage you to try you can't do it.
>and you are Howardish obsessed with it. You have
>become a defacto CoS member: stupid, rude, harassing, and obsessed with
>Howard. You are becoming like them.
You're getting carried away now.
>>>The view of time in the
>>>emanation doctrine is cyclical, meaning, for the most part, that while
>>>there
>>>are relative "beginnings" and "endings" of certain and particular phases
>>>or
>>>periods of activities and states within the boundless expanses of
>>>space/time, including the bang/crunch of galaxies, there is no absolute
>>>beginning or end before or after where nothing exists.
>>>
>>>Therefore the Guardians of Darkness hold as our first Fundamental
>>>Proposition that the universe and all contained therein is not the
>>>creation
>>>of any "god" or individual entity, but is the product and fruition of its
>>>own inherent forces and principles interacting upon one another throughout
>>>infinite duration,
>>
>> That's just a flowery way of saying "shit happens", which everyone
>> is aware of.
>
>It's outside your comfort zone. Mehh.
It's all you're saying Tani. Your whole belief "system" or whatever
suggests no more than that, and it goes right along with what Howard
wanted people to believe too.
>>>and that the quintessential reality within all manifested
>>>appearance is eternal and unchanging in nature,
>>
>> That's just referring to the structure of atoms and molecules.
>
>I don't mix science and religion.
That prevents you from putting things together while it distorts your
interpretation of reality and prevents you from thinking about it all in
a realistic way, as I continue to point out.
>>>while its many forms never
>>>cease to change. Our view is called "emanationism" with regards to the
>>>origins of the universe. This view might, today, agree with modern
>>>cosmogony, e.g., the Big Bang, but the doctrine that explains this is very
>>>ancient.
>>
>> It comes from the Hindu story about this all being the dream
>> of the creator Brahma who wakes up and goes back to sleep
>> from time to time, or something like that.
>
>That above did not come from a Hindu.
From wherever. I sure can't take your word for that whether
or no.
Please deny it for yourself. Go:
>>>We hold that every single entity in the universe, everything which has a
>>>recognizable form, everywhere and at all times, is infused throughout
>>>every
>>>fiber of its being with divinity,
>>
>> Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
>
>In Howardian fashion, you are claming to know what I disbelieve in? You
>have no clue. You don't know me or anything about me. I posted tons of
>urls with my own writings about DIVINITY on there. You didn't read them -
All you ever say about it is to claim there is no divinity. I don't to
read you saying it with thousands of words when I already know
that's what you believe.
>they were outside your "comfort zone
I consider the possibility that God doesn't exist. I just don't put
faith in it as you do, plus I can consider the possibility of his existence
in realistic ways which you can not.
>in the view you WISH to take of me."
You have created the impression I have of you yourself. If you
want to change it, then it again would be up to you.
>In true Howardian fashion, you have become - in fact - identical to them.
>My stalkers, btw. You are even stalking NOW.
I freak you out by challenging you to move beyond your comfort
zone, and somewhere deep inside you want to or you wouldn't have
finally tried to back up your claims. You would have stayed "hidden".
>>>and that there is nothing whatsoever in
>>>existence that is outside of, or is not utterly infused with, divinity.
>>
>> Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
>
>I never said that. How dare you say that for me?
Because by ridiculing people who consider the possibility of God's
existence you give the very clear impression that you disbelieve in God's
existence.
>You are being The Anti
>Life - you have become it. Congratulations. Too much obsession with Howard
>and now you are just like him.
>>
>>>By
>>>this proposition we do not mean to say that there is a form which contains
>>>a
>>>divine principle, rather we say that the form and that which it contains
>>>are
>>>equally divine. By "divine" we mean oneness with the eternal and
>>>parentless
>>>essence of reality and existence.
>>
>> It means NOTHING in other words, as I already pointed
>> out twice.
>
>It's outside your comfort zone and way over your little Howardian head.
You yourselves make it meaningless, not me. If there were any sort
of meaning to it I'd take that into consideration, but there is none. I have
asked you what you think could be significant about your supposed
mindless whateveryouthinkitis and you haven't been able to provide the
slightest reason why or how we could give it any. That is all YOUR fault
Tani, not mine.
>>>Again, these fundamental propositions presented here are the basic outline
>>>of our beliefs. Within these basic concepts inheres an immense number of
>>>individual doctrines and ideas which may be fully explored and interpreted
>>>by the individual.
>>
>> You believe shit just happens to happen to everything.
>> That sums up your entire belief in one sentence. I appreciate
>> you finally presenting the information though. You finally
>> backed up the claims you've been making, and though I
>> feel your beliefs are overly restricting in the extreme at least
>> you finally did back up what you've been talking about
>> with something. Congratulations on that much, Tani.
>>
>> But! You always have to screw it up. You waited until
>> AFTER you plonked my ass before you finally tried to back
>> up what you're trying to talk about. You are a mess.
>
>You are the mess, David. I posted numerous TONS of urls explaining a lot
>more than just this . It was over your head. It was way outside your
>comfort zone. You WANT me, NEED me, to be your enemy.
No. I want you to think beyond your current restrictions, but
it makes you too uncomfortable to think.
>Sorry, I won't oblige you.
>
>STOP STALKING ME. That's legal notice, OK? I'm taking that line from My
>New Heroine.
You pinged me. Obviously some deep inner part of you wants to
think beyond your safety zone. Try considering from a science pov
that with all the billions of stars and galaxies etc there are almost certain
to be areas where beings are capable of dealing with space and planets
and the development of life on planets, and probably on a number of
other things too. Whether or not any beings had influence on this planet
we can only guess, but it seems almost certain to me that they are having
it in some places if not here. They are Gods.
haj...@zappo.com
since I'm the one who emailed T and told her to "post this." She
didn't write it.
On Oct 8, 8:39 am, ping_T...@tanishit.net wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:14:16 -0400, "dh..@&^" <u...@bunga.com> wrote:
>
> ><pinging_Tani@tani'sanidiot.net> wrote in message
> >news:a17ke4h92041o7940...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:42:30 -0400, "Comm" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Don't know if you read it, but I can bet money you did not - and/or did
> >>>not
> >>>understand a word of it. But, anyway,
>
> >>>Darkness of any kind, especially the Abyssal, Original, One-Darkness we
> >>>speak of, is misunderstood, maligned, seen as evil and shunned due to
> >>>misperceptions.
>
> >> Original Darkness would be the period of "time" before there
> >> was anything producing visible light, and you don't know any
> >> more about that period than anyone else does, including me.
Actually, that's correct, however, the doctrine pre-dates science.
Imo, the Eastern people had it incredibly on target, right.
>
> >You are switching to science. This is about religion. I don't confuse the
> >two things.
UH - ?? LOL.
>
> What you mean is you can't put them together. If your supposed,
> mindless, dark spiritual ray which is neither dark, spiritual nor a ray
> really does exist, then it's science regardless of whether it's religious
> or not.
More of your misrepresenting of the DD? I see, wink, you betcha,
Butch.
> If the Christian God and Jesus etc exist it's science.
LOL, Science is the one sure thing that can easily disprove the
existence of a mythical being like Jesus, disprove the impossible
miracles attributed to him, and so forth.
If we're
> really just in the dreams of Brahma it's still science... If you can't
> understand that much then you'll never get anywhere near a realistic
> interpretation, no doubt.
Talking outcha ass, again, Butch? I'd agree that the ancient
intuition that thought up the Idea of the Dream of Brahma, or Adi
Buddha, was very much on target. Actual science does tend to sound an
awful lot like this stuff.
>
> >>>The true meaning of just what this Darkness is, is what
> >>>needs to be guarded, preserved, if you will, and explained.
>
> >> I just explained it.
In a way, you did.
>
> >>>It is out of
> >>>this One-Darkness that the Flame first arose, and from that Flame all else
> >>>came into Being. Without this Darkness, there is no Flame! Other names for
> >>>the Flame are Vajra, Dorje, Logos.
>
> >> The Big Bang.
Sure. OK.
>
> >That's science. Vajra and Dorje and Logos are in the realm of religion. I
> >don't confuse the two.
Well, if you consider that part of this BB is in us as bioelectricity,
then they can be merged as the same thing (come on! you know that! why
are you goofing on this jerk?)
>
> You can't relate them because you can't think of it realistically.
> That has been the reason the whole time Tani and it's always going
> to be unless you learn to think realistically.
Bwhahahahaha - if anything, Tani can think *very* realistically.
Whether or not she'd get into a chat with you is a whole other
matter. Apparently, she won't. She's goofing you around and I can
clearly see that. I've heard her in real life say some outrageously
crazy shit to people, like peole that think the Moon landing was
filmed in Arizona (I know man went to the moon because I went on an
astral trip and saw the litter they left there) just to get them to go
away. It usually works. But that's real life. You aren't real life,
obviously.
>
> >>>Proposition I: The Emanated Universe
>
> >>>Creation, as it is understood today, posits the pre-existence of a
> >>>"creator," which formed the universe out of nothing.
>
> >> Not necessarily. If a being or beings just had influence on the
> >> development of humans on this planet he/they could be considered
> >> our creator, even if they have one themselves and he one, etc...
>
> >I find it highly unlikely that advanced aliens had anything to do with life
> >on earth. However, maybe they did. Maybe the earth is 6000 years old, or
> >60,000 years old, maybe humans and dinosaurs were together (there ARE
> >footprints in some finds, all put on shelves). I'm not joking or mocking.
> >I don't know - but I tend to believe more on the side of the 4 billion year
> >old earth and natural evolution.
>
> I do too. It's part of thinking realistically. If God exists it seems pretty
> clear that he the Earth is billions of years old and he made use of the
> evolutionary method of developing life, which seems like a good way
> to do it.
OK, IF. IF. IF. IFIFIFIFIF. Who cares? You and your "thinking
realistically" shit. You call any of this SHIT "realistic" when we
are in for a fucking great depression here? Oh, puhleese, Lollie.
Life is here right now. There is no IF about that fact. I'm here.
You are here. My parents fucked and here I am. That's fine by me. I
don't need to waste my brain on all that scifi what if this and what
if that, god, aliens, IF IF IF. I don't have time for it. In fact, I
don't have time for THIS shit. I'm goofing off. I have to. We've
got huge problems here, right now. No, correction. We've got really
really really big problems here, right now.
>
> >It's a THEORY, David . Just a theory. I
> >find it interesting, eg, the Permian extinction information.
>
> It makes sense that he would eliminate some designs in favor of
> other ones. That's thinking realistically.
HE HE HE HE HE HE. You really have a bug up your ass :-D about HE.
His ROD and STAFF doth supremely comfort thee. Bwhahaha. It makes
sense to you, eh? Ok, shit for brains. You wouldn't know "realistic"
if it fucked you hard in your ass, Lollie.
>
> >>>In other words,
> >>>creationists believe that at the beginning of time there was an uncreated
> >>>being who made everything, including people, planets, rocks, trees,
> >>>everything, out of absolutely nothing by some fiat of omnipotent power.
>
> >> Not all of them you dishonest ass.
>
> >Creationists do believe that. If ONE does not believe that, then he or she
> >is not part of the GROUP called "creationists."
>
> It's still the same thing with you not thinking realistically. If we think
> realistically about how God could have created things, evolution must
> certainly be considered.
You are about as realistic as the woman that writes Harry Potter. She
thinks realistically, too. But she's writing fantasy. You like to
think realistically about fantasy. Fine. Stop pushing that shit on
other people. Don't you know how to take NO for an answer? Are you
so lonely that you have to come on here and beg for people to share
your little fantasy about how a god could realistically do this, and
do that, and do these other things? You are lonely, that's for sure,
desperate (in the wrong place, for sure) for company. You are getting
treated miserably on here, (I plead guilty only because you beg to be
treated that way). You're a masochist.
>
> >You are the ass
>
> You are the ass too.
Want to fuck my ass?
>
> > - and you
> >are becoming identical to Howard with your insulting shit. Then you wonder
> >why I insult you back?
>
> No, you started insulting me for considering the possibility of
> God's existence.
Oh hold on there, Butch. You are having supreme amnesia about exactly
how she started treating you like a masochist asking to be kicked in
the teeth. She started out treating you very nicely. You provoked
all of it, with her and anyone else on here, by deliberately going out
of your way to restate what they said, misinterpret what they said.
You did that, sweetie. You clearly crave to feel "intellectually,
reasonably" superior to everyone on here. You obviously need to feel
this. You don't fool anyone, "dh". You are what is commonly called a
"shit disturber."
>
> >HA! You are a mosquito.
>
> >>>Creation doctrines also teach a linear view of time, that is, that time
> >>>progresses in a straight line from beginning to end, there being nothing
> >>>before or after the duration of the timeline. The Guardians of Darkness
> >>>rejects the theories of creationists.
>
> >> So do some people who consider the possibility of creation.
>
> >Good for them. Btw, Newsflash a Jesuit wrote the essay you are criticizing.
> >I did NOT write it, but I agree with it. Obviously, he believes what he
> >wrote.
Sorry I ever nugged for it to be posted. Oh my stars, I started a
fight. My bad.
>
> All it says is that shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence
> of any being(s) superior to humans. May be. But then again, maybe not.
Since I am an atheist, hard line atheist at that, I agree with that.
Shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence of beings
superior to humans. Let me get one thing out of the way then, I have
FAITH in that, since you are next going to "absolutely insist" that I
say that. Oh dear!
>
> >>>The doctrine of emanation holds that universe is a cyclical (coming and
> >>>going forever) event, periodically entering into dormancy or "sleep," and
> >>>re-emerging into manifestation (appearance).
>
> >> The universe may be in cycles of expansion and contraction. As far
> >> as a creator goes that can be a significant and interesting aspect to
> >> take into consideration, but such possibilities our outside of your
> >> comfort zone.
The universe doesn't exactly Bang. It Bounces. It comes into
existence, then almost gets into that vanishing point and then pow,
comes into existence again. Is that like the Eye of Brahma opens and
closes over and over? Yes, it is. There is not much to take into
consideration, since I have, and most people have, a lot more pressing
matters to take into consideration. Only people living in the world
of daydreams don't take practical matters into primary consideration.
That would be you.
>
> >So you say. You have no idea what my "comfort zone" is
>
> I know it doesn't include thinking realistically about the possibility
> of God's existence, which is one reason you can't think realistically
> about the possibility of God's existence.
You talking about Tani? Bwhwhwha, you don't know her, that's for
sure. Ok, I am the Atheist here. Hard line, too. I don't care to
duscuss it, as I already gave you what you so crave, above.
>
> > - but you are
> >certainly sure you do,
>
> You PROVE that you can't think realistically about it. Even when
> I encourage you to try you can't do it.
That's because it's YOU trying, "dh." You are very slow to catch
clues, right? She doesn't like you. Therefore, you will get no
meaningful chat from her. That seems to be what happens with everyone
else on here, too. So why are you here? Obviously, you are starving
for chat. I could give you something else to eat :-D.
>
> >and you are Howardish obsessed with it. You have
> >become a defacto CoS member: stupid, rude, harassing, and obsessed with
> >Howard. You are becoming like them.
>
> You're getting carried away now.
No, you are becoming a lot like them.
>
> >>>The view of time in the
> >>>emanation doctrine is cyclical, meaning, for the most part, that while
> >>>there
> >>>are relative "beginnings" and "endings" of certain and particular phases
> >>>or
> >>>periods of activities and states within the boundless expanses of
> >>>space/time, including the bang/crunch of galaxies, there is no absolute
> >>>beginning or end before or after where nothing exists.
>
> >>>Therefore the Guardians of Darkness hold as our first Fundamental
> >>>Proposition that the universe and all contained therein is not the
> >>>creation
> >>>of any "god" or individual entity, but is the product and fruition of its
> >>>own inherent forces and principles interacting upon one another throughout
> >>>infinite duration,
>
> >> That's just a flowery way of saying "shit happens", which everyone
> >> is aware of.
>
> >It's outside your comfort zone. Mehh.
>
> It's all you're saying Tani. Your whole belief "system" or whatever
> suggests no more than that, and it goes right along with what Howard
> wanted people to believe too.
Howard (I sure the fuck hope you mean LaVey by that, because that's
who I'm talking about). Howard didn't give a shit what people
believed, and he didn't know himself exactly what he believed, since
he was changeable.
>
> >>>and that the quintessential reality within all manifested
> >>>appearance is eternal and unchanging in nature,
>
> >> That's just referring to the structure of atoms and molecules.
>
> >I don't mix science and religion.
UH....I'm shutting up.
>
> That prevents you from putting things together while it distorts your
> interpretation of reality and prevents you from thinking about it all in
> a realistic way, as I continue to point out.
You are as realistic as the author of Harry Potter. You both like to
think up a lot of fantasy. Unlike her, you crave discussion about
your fantasies in the wrong places. She makes a lot of money with her
fantasies.
>
> >>>while its many forms never
> >>>cease to change. Our view is called "emanationism" with regards to the
> >>>origins of the universe. This view might, today, agree with modern
> >>>cosmogony, e.g., the Big Bang, but the doctrine that explains this is very
> >>>ancient.
>
> >> It comes from the Hindu story about this all being the dream
> >> of the creator Brahma who wakes up and goes back to sleep
> >> from time to time, or something like that.
>
> >That above did not come from a Hindu.
I know who wrote that, but it is from the ancient Hindu or later
Tibetan Buddhism.
>
> From wherever. I sure can't take your word for that whether
> or no.
Realistically, if you absolutely know you can't take the word of
anyone, why would you try to engage that person, or anyone else you
can't trust the word of? You do this constantly. Someone says A, you
insist they mean B. That's the problem, Lollie. So the person starts
to jerk you around, and you are so clueless or masochist that you keep
getting jerked around.
I'll agree with that. The Chinese don't tend to be religious/
superstitious because they are smarter.
>
> >> Christians put their faith in one thing. You put your faith in
> >> something
> >> else. Christians usually proudly declare their faith. People like yourself
> >> usually cowardly and dishonestly, pathetically though amusingly, try to
> >> deny your own.
>
> >Who is denying faith? Oh, I see, in Howardian fashion, you are denying MY
> >faith for me. I see.
>
> Please deny it for yourself. Go:
There you go again denying faith for Tani when she never did that
herself. That's the problem. You are a fuckhead.
>
> >>>We hold that every single entity in the universe, everything which has a
> >>>recognizable form, everywhere and at all times, is infused throughout
> >>>every
> >>>fiber of its being with divinity,
>
> >> Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
>
> >In Howardian fashion, you are claming to know what I disbelieve in? You
> >have no clue. You don't know me or anything about me. I posted tons of
> >urls with my own writings about DIVINITY on there. You didn't read them -
>
> All you ever say about it is to claim there is no divinity. I don't to
> read you saying it with thousands of words when I already know
> that's what you believe.
Sure, you know. You don't know anything, you certainly don't know a
person I personally do know in real life. But whatever.
>
> >they were outside your "comfort zone
>
> I consider the possibility that God doesn't exist. I just don't put
> faith in it as you do, plus I can consider the possibility of his existence
> in realistic ways which you can not.
You do nothing but create fantasy scenariors for some creator - and of
course, some beast. That's all you are doing. You are apparently a
little insane, because you can't see that this is what you are
doing.
>
> >in the view you WISH to take of me."
>
> You have created the impression I have of you yourself. If you
> want to change it, then it again would be up to you.
>
> >In true Howardian fashion, you have become - in fact - identical to them.
> >My stalkers, btw. You are even stalking NOW.
>
> I freak you out by challenging you to move beyond your comfort
> zone, and somewhere deep inside you want to or you wouldn't have
> finally tried to back up your claims. You would have stayed "hidden".
You don't freak anyone out, Butch. You just fantasize that you do and
probably jerk off about it. What do you mean hidden? OH, because
someone doesn't come on here (I've not been on here for ages), they
are hidden? Get real! You never heard of message boards?
>
> >>>and that there is nothing whatsoever in
> >>>existence that is outside of, or is not utterly infused with, divinity.
>
> >> Yet you disbelieve in divinity, making the idea useless.
>
> >I never said that. How dare you say that for me?
>
> Because by ridiculing people who consider the possibility of God's
> existence you give the very clear impression that you disbelieve in God's
> existence.
You are very ridiculable, so you get ridiculed. It's really that
simple.
>
> >You are being The Anti
> >Life - you have become it. Congratulations. Too much obsession with Howard
> >and now you are just like him.
>
> >>>By
> >>>this proposition we do not mean to say that there is a form which contains
> >>>a
> >>>divine principle, rather we say that the form and that which it contains
> >>>are
> >>>equally divine. By "divine" we mean oneness with the eternal and
> >>>parentless
> >>>essence of reality and existence.
>
> >> It means NOTHING in other words, as I already pointed
> >> out twice.
>
> >It's outside your comfort zone and way over your little Howardian head.
>
> You yourselves make it meaningless, not me. If there were any sort
> of meaning to it I'd take that into consideration, but there is none. I have
> asked you what you think could be significant about your supposed
> mindless whateveryouthinkitis and you haven't been able to provide the
> slightest reason why or how we could give it any. That is all YOUR fault
> Tani, not mine.
Is anyone asking you to consider anything? I don't see that. Nobody
on here gives a shit what you consider or don't consider. If you had
half a brain, you'd have caught that clue ages ago. You asked, Tani
gave you urls instead of typing it again for you. You ignored. Fine.
You become the official alt.satanism shit disturber that can't take
"no" for an answer. Boo hoo, nobody wants to be "dh's" friend. Boo
hoo.
>
> >>>Again, these fundamental propositions presented here are the basic outline
> >>>of our beliefs. Within these basic concepts inheres an immense number of
> >>>individual doctrines and ideas which may be fully explored and interpreted
> >>>by the individual.
>
> >> You believe shit just happens to happen to everything.
> >> That sums up your entire belief in one sentence. I appreciate
> >> you finally presenting the information though. You finally
> >> backed up the claims you've been making, and though I
> >> feel your beliefs are overly restricting in the extreme at least
> >> you finally did back up what you've been talking about
> >> with something. Congratulations on that much, Tani.
>
> >> But! You always have to screw it up. You waited until
> >> AFTER you plonked my ass before you finally tried to back
> >> up what you're trying to talk about. You are a mess.
LOL, you snuck under the plonk, you Lollipop.
>
> >You are the mess, David. I posted numerous TONS of urls explaining a lot
> >more than just this . It was over your head. It was way outside your
> >comfort zone. You WANT me, NEED me, to be your enemy.
>
> No. I want you to think beyond your current restrictions, but
> it makes you too uncomfortable to think.
>
> >Sorry, I won't oblige you.
>
> >STOP STALKING ME. That's legal notice, OK? I'm taking that line from My
> >New Heroine.
>
> You pinged me. Obviously some deep inner part of you
My fault. Sorry. Entirely my fault. I should have posted the thing
myself but, at that time, I didn't have the time to.
ping...@tanizone.net
If it exists it's science.
>I see, wink, you betcha,
>Butch.
>
>
>> If the Christian God and Jesus etc exist it's science.
>
>
>LOL, Science is the one sure thing that can easily disprove the
>existence of a mythical being like Jesus, disprove the impossible
>miracles attributed to him, and so forth.
No it can't, or it would have. You sure are clueless.
>If we're
>> really just in the dreams of Brahma it's still science... If you can't
>> understand that much then you'll never get anywhere near a realistic
>> interpretation, no doubt.
>
>
>Talking outcha ass, again, Butch? I'd agree that the ancient
>intuition that thought up the Idea of the Dream of Brahma, or Adi
>Buddha, was very much on target. Actual science does tend to sound an
>awful lot like this stuff.
Which part(s) do you think sound possibly realistic?
>> >>>The true meaning of just what this Darkness is, is what
>> >>>needs to be guarded, preserved, if you will, and explained.
>>
>> >> I just explained it.
>
>In a way, you did.
>
>>
>> >>>It is out of
>> >>>this One-Darkness that the Flame first arose, and from that Flame all else
>> >>>came into Being. Without this Darkness, there is no Flame! Other names for
>> >>>the Flame are Vajra, Dorje, Logos.
>>
>> >> The Big Bang.
>
>
>Sure. OK.
>
>>
>> >That's science. Vajra and Dorje and Logos are in the realm of religion. I
>> >don't confuse the two.
>
>Well, if you consider that part of this BB is in us as bioelectricity,
>then they can be merged as the same thing (come on! you know that! why
>are you goofing on this jerk?)
>
>>
>> You can't relate them because you can't think of it realistically.
>> That has been the reason the whole time Tani and it's always going
>> to be unless you learn to think realistically.
>
>
>Bwhahahahaha - if anything, Tani can think *very* realistically.
Yet there's no evidence of it.
>Whether or not she'd get into a chat with you is a whole other
>matter. Apparently, she won't. She's goofing you around and I can
>clearly see that.
She can't think about the existence of God in a realistic way.
>I've heard her in real life say some outrageously
>crazy shit to people, like peole that think the Moon landing was
>filmed in Arizona (I know man went to the moon because I went on an
>astral trip
Which bus?
>and saw the litter they left there) just to get them to go
>away. It usually works. But that's real life. You aren't real life,
>obviously.
>
>>
>> >>>Proposition I: The Emanated Universe
>>
>> >>>Creation, as it is understood today, posits the pre-existence of a
>> >>>"creator," which formed the universe out of nothing.
>>
>> >> Not necessarily. If a being or beings just had influence on the
>> >> development of humans on this planet he/they could be considered
>> >> our creator, even if they have one themselves and he one, etc...
>>
>> >I find it highly unlikely that advanced aliens had anything to do with life
>> >on earth. However, maybe they did. Maybe the earth is 6000 years old, or
>> >60,000 years old, maybe humans and dinosaurs were together (there ARE
>> >footprints in some finds, all put on shelves). I'm not joking or mocking.
>> >I don't know - but I tend to believe more on the side of the 4 billion year
>> >old earth and natural evolution.
>>
>> I do too. It's part of thinking realistically. If God exists it seems pretty
>> clear that he the Earth is billions of years old and he made use of the
>> evolutionary method of developing life, which seems like a good way
>> to do it.
>
>OK, IF. IF. IF. IFIFIFIFIF. Who cares?
People who try to think about it realistically of course.
>You and your "thinking
>realistically" shit. You call any of this SHIT "realistic" when we
>are in for a fucking great depression here?
Regardless.
>Oh, puhleese, Lollie.
>Life is here right now. There is no IF about that fact.
Actually there is, but you don't have enough room in your
comfort zone to consider all the possibilities, like the possibility
of God's existence for example.
>I'm here.
>You are here. My parents fucked and here I am. That's fine by me. I
>don't need to waste my brain on all that scifi what if this and what
>if that, god, aliens, IF IF IF. I don't have time for it.
It doesn't take any more time than not thinking about it. But you
can't do it at all, so I guess trying would be a waste of time for you,
now that you mention it.
>In fact, I
>don't have time for THIS shit. I'm goofing off. I have to. We've
>got huge problems here, right now. No, correction. We've got really
>really really big problems here, right now.
>>
>> >It's a THEORY, David . Just a theory. I
>> >find it interesting, eg, the Permian extinction information.
>>
>> It makes sense that he would eliminate some designs in favor of
>> other ones. That's thinking realistically.
>
>
>HE HE HE HE HE HE. You really have a bug up your ass :-D about HE.
>His ROD and STAFF doth supremely comfort thee. Bwhahaha. It makes
>sense to you, eh? Ok, shit for brains. You wouldn't know "realistic"
>if it fucked you hard in your ass, Lollie.
In contrast to that I recognise that what I said is both realistic and
obvious, and what you said is childlike and not at all realistic. In fact
when I feel like God fucks me in the ass if he exists, it usually pisses
me off. You sure are extremely clueless.
>> >>>In other words,
>> >>>creationists believe that at the beginning of time there was an uncreated
>> >>>being who made everything, including people, planets, rocks, trees,
>> >>>everything, out of absolutely nothing by some fiat of omnipotent power.
>>
>> >> Not all of them you dishonest ass.
>>
>> >Creationists do believe that. If ONE does not believe that, then he or she
>> >is not part of the GROUP called "creationists."
>>
>> It's still the same thing with you not thinking realistically. If we think
>> realistically about how God could have created things, evolution must
>> certainly be considered.
>
>You are about as realistic as the woman that writes Harry Potter. She
>thinks realistically, too. But she's writing fantasy. You like to
>think realistically about fantasy. Fine. Stop pushing that shit on
>other people. Don't you know how to take NO for an answer?
You're mentally incapable of doing it. It really is impressive in
a pathetic way to realise that some people are just mentally
incapable of thinking realistically about it. You can think like a
little child time after time, but that's all.
>Are you
>so lonely that you have to come on here and beg for people to share
>your little fantasy about how a god could realistically do this, and
>do that, and do these other things? You are lonely, that's for sure,
>desperate (in the wrong place, for sure) for company. You are getting
>treated miserably on here, (I plead guilty only because you beg to be
>treated that way). You're a masochist.
LOL. I find it amusing that you try to insult me for your own mental
limitations and stupidity.
>> >You are the ass
>>
>> You are the ass too.
>
>Want to fuck my ass?
Probably not.
>> > - and you
>> >are becoming identical to Howard with your insulting shit. Then you wonder
>> >why I insult you back?
>>
>> No, you started insulting me for considering the possibility of
>> God's existence.
>
>Oh hold on there, Butch. You are having supreme amnesia about exactly
>how she started treating you like a masochist asking to be kicked in
>the teeth. She started out treating you very nicely.
She's nice one minute and a bitch the next, and always has been.
>You provoked
>all of it, with her and anyone else on here, by deliberately going out
>of your way to restate what they said, misinterpret what they said.
If you mean by pointing out their faith and then being amused and
insulting about the fact that they deny it, it's not my fault because it is
amusing and also pathetic.
>You did that, sweetie. You clearly crave to feel "intellectually,
>reasonably" superior to everyone on here. You obviously need to feel
>this. You don't fool anyone, "dh". You are what is commonly called a
>"shit disturber."
I point out things that other people don't want to take into
consideration, but I believe they should because they're significant.
It's not like it would hurt any of you to think realistically, but it would
drag you out of your comfort zone. It's always the same...you don't
want to risk it. What do you think you have to lose? It's not like your
restricted thinking is superior. I consider the possibility that God
doesn't exist at all the same as you, but I also consider much more
than you can like that he does exist and then it goes on from there.
>> >HA! You are a mosquito.
>>
>> >>>Creation doctrines also teach a linear view of time, that is, that time
>> >>>progresses in a straight line from beginning to end, there being nothing
>> >>>before or after the duration of the timeline. The Guardians of Darkness
>> >>>rejects the theories of creationists.
>>
>> >> So do some people who consider the possibility of creation.
>>
>> >Good for them. Btw, Newsflash a Jesuit wrote the essay you are criticizing.
>> >I did NOT write it, but I agree with it. Obviously, he believes what he
>> >wrote.
>
>Sorry I ever nugged for it to be posted. Oh my stars, I started a
>fight. My bad.
>
>>
>> All it says is that shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence
>> of any being(s) superior to humans. May be. But then again, maybe not.
>
>
>Since I am an atheist, hard line atheist at that, I agree with that.
>Shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence of beings
>superior to humans. Let me get one thing out of the way then, I have
>FAITH in that, since you are next going to "absolutely insist" that I
>say that. Oh dear!
Thanks for admitting it. I'll add it to the little list. What name should
I use for you? (try to be realistic for a change)
>> >>>The doctrine of emanation holds that universe is a cyclical (coming and
>> >>>going forever) event, periodically entering into dormancy or "sleep," and
>> >>>re-emerging into manifestation (appearance).
>>
>> >> The universe may be in cycles of expansion and contraction. As far
>> >> as a creator goes that can be a significant and interesting aspect to
>> >> take into consideration, but such possibilities our outside of your
>> >> comfort zone.
>
>
>The universe doesn't exactly Bang. It Bounces. It comes into
>existence, then almost gets into that vanishing point and then pow,
>comes into existence again. Is that like the Eye of Brahma opens and
>closes over and over? Yes, it is.
No, it's not. You're not thinking realistically again.
>There is not much to take into
>consideration, since I have, and most people have, a lot more pressing
>matters to take into consideration. Only people living in the world
>of daydreams don't take practical matters into primary consideration.
>That would be you.
Your limitation is nothing to be proud of, regardless of how
much you brag about it.
>> >So you say. You have no idea what my "comfort zone" is
>>
>> I know it doesn't include thinking realistically about the possibility
>> of God's existence, which is one reason you can't think realistically
>> about the possibility of God's existence.
>
>You talking about Tani? Bwhwhwha, you don't know her, that's for
>sure.
I know she can't think realistically about the possibility of
God's existence. Is she actually mentally incapable? I don't
know, but she doesn't do it meaning she can't do it regardless
of whether she really is mentally capable or not.
>Ok, I am the Atheist here. Hard line, too. I don't care to
>duscuss it, as I already gave you what you so crave, above.
>>
>> > - but you are
>> >certainly sure you do,
>>
>> You PROVE that you can't think realistically about it. Even when
>> I encourage you to try you can't do it.
>
>That's because it's YOU trying, "dh." You are very slow to catch
>clues, right? She doesn't like you. Therefore, you will get no
>meaningful chat from her. That seems to be what happens with everyone
>else on here, too. So why are you here?
Since I like to consider as many possibilities as possible, this
seems like it should be the sort of place where a new one might
come along, which of course it the opposite of what you people
are about but that doesn't mean some of you can't fuck up and
give me something new to throw in the pile every once in a while.
I was very impressed to find that so many atheists are ashamed
of their faith, for example. The absurdity of that is reinforcing
evidence of the possibility of Satan's existence, which is
reinforcing evidence of God's existence, etc...
Maybe that's why Satan chose him to write the book, if he
exists? Oh that's right, you're not allowed to think about stuff
like that. It's kind of funny, but also scary.
You'd have to give examples of what you're trying to complain
about. You admitted your faith. Other people who have it usually
don't. That's not my fault, but I know it's true and feel confident
that you're aware of it too.
>That's the problem, Lollie. So the person starts
>to jerk you around, and you are so clueless or masochist that you keep
>getting jerked around.
Some times it is a little hard to tell the difference between the
stupid things people actually believe and the stupid things they
say as a joke, since the way they think about it all is so limitted
and childlike.
. . .
>> Because by ridiculing people who consider the possibility of God's
>> existence you give the very clear impression that you disbelieve in God's
>> existence.
>
>You are
No not me, her. If she's actually ridiculing people for doing
something she does herself then I'm sorry for underestimating
how stupid she is, but she would have to explain that's the
case before it will seem like the most likely possibility. She
can't think about it realistically anyway, so there's really not
much there even if she does make some attempt. That's the
way it is and if she doesn't like it then she needs to change
it, not bitch at me for suggesting that she try to.