Pash-- If I apply the same standard I'm trying to argue against, yes. Why? Because by that standard, she's not "Teresa of Calcutta", she is just another Christian who (nasty generalizations for illustration) .... I've known several Satanists whom I could trust with my life. That's an important thing, y'know. And it's not like I actually like Satanism. It's as generally small-minded and assumptive as the Christianity it so actively opposes. But I think I might have made my point about the generalization with the words I've excerpted. Apparently, certain phrases--which I know you've read because you cited them--have no meaning. * However, applying the same standard .... * That is, if I apply the knowledge and judgement standard you're demonstrating. Technically, if you'd bothered to read those phrases, you wouldn't have had to ask the question. You're too afraid of superstition and prejudice. That Mama-T couldn't babysit my kids was too important a shocker for you to actually consider the conditions attached? thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Tiassa: This is what is called a hasty conclusion or the fallacy of the small sample. Y'know, it's also anecdotal. When you get the time I would really like to see you refute my last two posts here. All the best, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Adlerian
I'm right, Tiassa, you ARE nuts! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You would rather have somebody like Marilyn Manson with your kids rather than Mother Thresea? What the hell did some Christian do to you when you were young?! Lady, do you not know the difference between good and evil? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
Pashley: As you can see, I backed tiassa into a corner and he has yet to respond. Some people are like that I guess. He called me on my "generalization" and I answered, but when I called him on his calling me, he fell silent. He may still respond, but it looks like he would rather ignore my comments than try to rebutt them or heaven forbid, say I was right. Oh well... Cool shades though, huh? He let me borrow them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Adlerian
Alderian-- No, it's just that I have other commitments sometimes. You know, you might consider that I have a job. And, sarcasm aside, every once in a while, I have to do some work. cheers, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Alderian-- Once again, I'm left wondering at your reading comprehension. More on that in a moment. Since you're so anxious: Geraldo's conclusions were foregone. Two teenagers in Missouri, with alcoholic, fundamentalist parents who beat them, claim "the Devil made us do it" when they beat a friend to death in the woods with a baseball bat, and our fine journalistic guide considers that more authoritative than the words of Ozzy Osbourne (accused Satanist, though us reasonable folks write his antics up to alcoholsim), King Diamond (acknowledged Satanist whom Geraldo directly refuted with the A-1 argument, "Bull"), or Anton and Zena LaVey, who run the American Church of Satan. Geraldo's tactics were the equivalent of holding the Pope responsible for a Baptist who rapes his daughter. It was typical Geraldo self-righteousness; bad for journalism, and bad for the public interest. It was, in short, a two-hour editorial on "How Geraldo Feels About Satan". I have no problem marking groups. I have a problem with people who decide that their own idea of what that group is happens to ignore, completely, the group's own assessment of itself. You're off railing against teen Satanism and Gothicism without giving a rat's-behind worth of consideration to the parents' failure to intervene. That, sir, is your own to work out. Perhaps Christ's teachings are superior. But A) that can't be established as fact, and B) Christians have had two-thousand years to ignore those teachings while Satanism, due to being crushed by said Christianity, generally only pops up in any organized form for a short period. The current Age started in 1966. However, Satan being the Lord of Darkness and Death is a purely Christian superstition. The Dark One did not really walk among us until after a more conceptual, Jewish "satan" had been politically crushed, along with the rest of Hebrew culture. So, yes, perhaps Christ's teachings are superior to your limited version of Satan. Your words make their own excuses though: You still have yet to demonstrate the redeeming propriety of your scurrilous assertion that people should have their children taken from them on the basis of the religion of their associates. So what's the cure? I'm hoping it's not a heap of assumptions in your medicine bag. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! #1. Assumption. #2. Fair statement. #3. Perhaps some emotionally disturbed Satanists do. you forgot, though-- #4. This applies to virutally any religion. Even Christianity. As to that wonderful, prosy summary of your ideas of Satanism ... so that second group doesn't rankle you? I also want your opinion of that hidden, true identity. Such assumptions are borderline; they might be described by ugly words from our more civil lexicon. One of them starts with a "B". As far as your expose ... read the 9 Statements of Satan. If you're not inclined to make the effort to find them, I'll dig 'em up and post 'em for you. Once you do that, read the history of those statements. If you can't make the connections, I won't be able to demonstrate them for you. In the meantime, I'll tell you a secret: Satanism wouldn't be in business today if Christians could walk their talk. It's a largely reactionary religion; as I said, few of my associates from those days are still among the flock. Of course, such anecdotes aren't nearly as definitive as your assumptions. By the way, Satanism requires a very ludicrous sense of irony. I'll start with this maxim, unwritten to my knowledge, but a slogan among virtually every Satanist I know: "At least Satan never lied to me." That's a pretty powerful testament in my own mind when placed against propagandist Christian assumptions regarding the nature of Satan. But again, that's anecdotal, and my own experiences can't stand up to a well-invented assumption. As to your original point about the dictionary: do we then change how we define words every time a new edition comes out? Give me a cultural balance of the editorial staff at Webster's, and I'll be happy to run through it with you, and even explain how cultural prejudice can interfere in the most seemingly neutral endeavors. Dictionaries work well enough for words like "blue" and "stone". But they aren't meant to be a final definition. Otherwise, all that research about ideas that are described by words in the dictionary becomes useless. Dictionaries represent language, which is very transitory. They help with spelling, that's for sure. But they really shouldn't be the basis of your opinion. Now, as to your reading comprehension. This is starting to get a little distracting: Okay: First, what rankles me is when anyone of any religion declares their faith so loudly as to land their faith on the ballot. I have voted in such elections in 1992, '94, '95, '96, '97, and '98. Never have I been asked to strip a group of people of their rights for Satanic principles. Next ... why hide it? What a dumb question for you to ask. We were discussing the fact that you don't like it when infidels express their religion. I might remind you: And the answer is still no that I wouldn't have someone babysit my kids or watch my hamster if they felt it was neccesary to "rankle" me as an adult by letting me know that they were a Satanist. (Your own words, 5/22) That, I might remind you, was the issue in that particular portion of the discussion. But your rapier wit, obviously, doesn't care about that part of it. Simply, now, so I know you get it: If I apply the generalizations I'm objecting to while selecting a babysitter, I wouldn't hire Mother Theresa, based solely on my perception of Christian conduct. Get it? Hope so. What of it? Obviously, thou art holier than I. What of it? How about this: As long as you want to generalize about people you choose not to like, I'll generalize my counterpoints. In the long run, I have nothing more against Christianity as a philosophy than I do Satanism, or any other dominion-oriented religion. That Christianity refuses to look at its own reflection critically ... that's only my problem when it tells me what not to read, who not to sleep with, and what not to think. Otherwise, it's largely up to Christians to bust out of that morass. Believe me, when the "proper" (as such) Christians begin defining their publicly expressed faith in a manner more positive than those brethren entrusted with representing Christianity to the world today, then I'll be much less guarded toward the churches. What's really good about Christians and rightwingers, though, is that their method often blatantly defeats their purpose, and makes the demonstration (in theory) easy. Communication's the hard part. One last comment, though. If it's an excuse to describe Columbine as a complex situation, then what does that leave us? Blame the god-damned Devil? Besides, if my feelings on Harris and Klebold are unclear, I would ask that you consider the many references I made to groups, reasons, and parents in my 5/22 post, which you find an excuse. It's a very complex problem, and I think it's laughable in a macabre sense to try to blame the Devil, or the "group" for these kids actions. if you get it, good. Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Pash-- "Hooked on Phonics" does not equal literacy. You've got to be joking if you can't possibly follow the thread from where this part of it started until today. Check the latter portion of my latest post to Alderian. Actually, I'll remind you, so I'm sure it gets included in something you read: If I apply the standard I'm objecting to, then no, I would not allow Mother Teresa to babysit my children. Why? Well, it seems that the standard I'm objecting to is the idea that one wouldn't hire someone based on their religion. This standard is based, apparently, on nothing more than superstition, propaganda, and assumption. If I allow my more superstitious, propagandous, and assumptive generalizations to stand (you know, those things that I generally know better than to say because they're merely generalizations?), then no Christian save for Christ himself would babysit my kids. Hey, I didn't propose the standard. I'm just trying to demonstrate its full implications. And no, Pash, it's not what some Christian did to me when I was young. But I have yet to see the promise of the faith actualized. Given the harm I've witnessed to the world at large resulting from Christian guidance, I'd say that it's a dangerous philosophy beyond its relationship to the individual. make sense? or is it too schizophrenic for you? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Oh please, "Christian Guidance". Only 1/4 of the world's population is Christian. And yes, I see the harm they have done, with the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Save the Children, and countless other charities Christians sponser. Yes, we've so ruined the World. ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
Tiassa: You are better at side-stepping issues than I thought. I noticed you didn't respond to this: which was the core of my argument. You seem hell bent (sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) on believing the lies of your own group rather than what any person with common sense could tell. It is a bad idea to let someone watch your kids if you know they are a Satanist. Or perhaps all the kids in the survey were wrong. Oh, I know, they were talking about the "bad Satan" they weren't talking about the "good Satan". I see now, you have made it abundantly clear. If you wish to let a group define themselves for you rather than use the mandates of common sense, that's your business. Just don't go slinging terms around to others who follow common sense. It makes you look foolish. Perhaps you would rather believe what the members of NAMBLA say about themselves than the mandate of common sense. If you follow the course you are on you will end in destruction my friend, and that is really too bad for you are somewhat gifted and capable of so much. Here's a little tidbit for you in Koine Greek. Do you know what pharmakia means? All the best, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Adlerian
Tiassa: I would say you are probably right about the show even though I never saw it. The reason that I would say that is that is single time I saw him “perform” he had the ratiocinative powers of a penguin. But you are telling me that he presented no facts? No statistics? I do not completely ignore what a group says about itself, I just consider the source and note the bias. I, like most people, use my common sense combined with my own experience, frame of reference, as you like to call it when it comes to the mandates of common sense. Do you really think that I do not blame others indirectly? You are completely wrong here. However, when a minority guns down a member of another race FOR THAT reason I don’t start talking about his childhood or how “society” made him what he was. So who was directly responsible for the murders committed by Harris and Klebold (by the way, I am not as disconnected from the issue as you might suppose, I lived in Denver for a while and one of my best friends taught one of them guitar). Directly, it is obvious. THEY WERE. Indirectly? Where do you want to start the list? Does it make them less responsible? Hardly. I have nothing to work out. You are deceived because you wish to be. Christ's teachings are far superior, that is an established fact. #1. Assumption. Yes, technically speaking, it is. But so is the theory of gravity as refined by Einstein. And both are built on facts. #2. Fair statement. It was an obvious statement so I guess you ought to have noticed that. #3. Perhaps some emotionally disturbed Satanists do. So, emotionally disturbed people may commit violent acts, unless they belong to your group? I see. This is called a broad generalization. You know, the thing you rail against? Excuse me for bringing us back to the point, but, Satanists have been charged with committing crimes against their peers and conspiracy to commit crimes. Please address what you so conveniently overlooked. The facts, refer to the recent poll. The only thing that rankles me is those who will not think or reason. How could I give an opinion of the second group when you haven’t told me their secrets? At this point you are so aligned with them that I would have to research it myself to be sure. And, frankly, it isn’t worth the trouble. I do not know what you are intimating here but your subtlety is lost on me. Sounds pretty bad by your allusion to it though. Yes, like I said, I will take into account the statements of the Satanists and give them just as much credence as I do the fundamentalists, which is, of course, little. Not that either group would be biased. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In the meantime, I’ll tell YOU a secret. What I know of Satanism doesn’t just come from common knowledge, it comes from the uncommon kind as well, if you catch my drift. Insiders’ info? Thank you for noticing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes yes yes, I got it the first time. Sorry you don’t understand irony as well as you think you do. Geez Louise, yes, I got it. Did you seriously think I didn’t? I must try to be less subtle. You have generalized too much about me. Here, let me clear it up for you. No, I CERTAINLY DON’T think the state should have the right to take away someone’s child if they let a Satanist babysit them. DID YOU GET THAT????? Find where I said that it was all right for the State (Big Brother) to do that. Please find it. And you talk about reading comprehension? Secondly, I have no problem when infidels express their faith. Just remember if you are (not you personally, lest you misunderstand again) an infidel you are going to bring trouble on your own head from people who DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT!!!! BUT THAT AIN’T ME!!!! Now do you understand? Get it? Hope so. The Mother Theresa thing was done well, sorry I didn’t comment on it. And yes, you have a good point. However, the stats today reflect that certain groups have higher numbers of members with dysfunctionality, have you heard of ranges? Satanists are among the highest when it comes to emotional imbalance. Sorry, I don’t make the facts. I just report them. I won’t comment on the rest of your post since it appears you are unable to listen. I will say that you really should read some logic texts or take a refresher course or do something to help you think more consistently. You are smart enough, tiassa, there is no doubt of that. All the best, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Adlerian
Alderian-- I quote your words to FyreStar: I quote your tantrum at me: Now ... would you like to retract anything? It seems to me you're endorsing the idea that the state should take people's children based on the religions of the parents' associates. Corrections? Retractions? Now ... you've made a reasonable point with your statitics. However ... violence-prone groups ... check. We can validate that notion of a threat perceived by statistical evidence. Can we validate the "Satanic" fear? See, I recall a time when I was called to answer for five horse killings because of the Slayer patch on my jacket. (They didn't realize who King Diamond was.) Now, this was before I became a Satanist; at the time I just listened to loud music. Oh, wait ... that's an anecdote. It's not qualified to rebut your assumptions. My bigget question is whether you think the Satanism you refer to that's plaguing our high schools is a cause or a symptom. And how dumb do you want me to believe you are? NAMBLA is not a religion. If you're unable to make that basic distinction, why are you still arguing? The comparison you're imagining just isn't there. By the way ... did your resource say how many of the high-school Satanist-violence kids came from Hindu households? Or did that resource forget to account for the limitations of expression deriving from a limited cultural experience? I would say the prevailing attitudes in most high schools in the US, if ever at all religious, are generally Judeo-Christian. Now ... I'm willing to accept your statistics because A) I have no reason to argue with them, and B) it proves nothing without a horrendous prejudice to guide that proof. Once we establish a statistical trend, we must determine why it exists. Otherwise, a correlation between milk sales and rapes would be significant. It's not too bad a generalization. The thing is that unstable people undertake all sorts of religions. Some of them act out in a form prescribed by that religion. Christianity is a religion, too, you know, and there are unstable people there. The point is that your syllogism is insignificant in the larger picture. Sure, I can follow that little piece of argumentation, but it's only significant if it isn't virtually universal. Oh ... write better irony. See, therein lies your problem. You don't trust people. In fact, you trust them so little you won't let them represent themselves. You can disagree with the theology of Satanism--so do I. But you would prefer to define people according to your own preexisting images. Essentially, your own prejudices. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Aw ... Lion, the Wizard's got something for you, too. Your logic is generally something I can work with. It's your assumptions-as-fact which pulverize your credibility. Oh ... what statistics could Geraldo present? The contemporary line from Law Enforcement was that no organized "cult" existed connecting the various crimes attributed to Satanism. It still is. As with most of his stories, he had nothing to go on but his own reserve of oozing self-assurance. I wanted to ask you about your consideration of sources: Does that bias include whether or not the source is required to believe or proclaim this aspect? More specifically: What, then, can I trust of a doctrine a faithful is required to believe at the stake of not being of the faith? Now that's a spicy bias. You see, I can even accept your assumptions if you're just willing to consider what happens when you apply them universally. Oh ... (Nod, nod ... wink, wink. Drift caught. But if former Satanists aren't valid enough insiders, what are? Oh! Assumptions. Sorry, I forgot. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Okay, just so I have it straight ... it's ok for people Not Christian to express their faith, just as long as they don't do it where you are? That's ... uh ... logical. I like that threat, too. By the way, how many people do you think get sick of hearing about others' religions at the ballot box? Do you ever stop to think of what happens when people take your attitudes and turn them back on you for the same ridiculous reasons? When you speak of logic texts, do you mean those silly proofs like we learned in geometry? You know, the ones that only worked if you wrote down all of the assumptions in brackets before you began? winks, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Pash-- re: Christian guidance We all certainly know about the travesties of the Crusades and the Inquisitions. -Encomienda -Manifest Destiny (and all the crap that led to its adoption) -Black '47 (Ireland; 1847--the height of the famine) -Partition of India (1947) -Various contributions to American slavery (i.e.--justification for keeping slaves illiterate) -Red Scare (okay, I'm getting into smaller numbers, but ....) I stopped because the numbers affected begin to get smaller, which puts events into a context that occurs throughout society. But consider the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Manifest Destiny, and the partition of India: these events destroyed entire nations. These events and processes cannot be entirely separated from the cultures that perpetuated them. Contemporary interpretations of the Chritian God abetted, if not sponsored all of those tragedies. I'm well aware of Christian-sponsored charity. However, I wonder how much of that charity might be unnecessary if we change our opinions of its necesssary causes. And some of that does run as deeply as how we interpret God. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Tiassa, Certainly, things were done in the past by Christians that were wrong, such as the Inquisition, and the lack of help to the Jews during Hitlers' reign. Agreed. But Christianity's mistakes fall far short of the problems men have created for themselves, in lieu of any religion. How many were killed, maimed or nations ripped apart by: The Civil War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea,felonious crimes committed every day? MILLIONS, that's how many. Man visits much more hurt on his fellow man because of greed, hate and fear than you will ever find in religious directives. ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
Pash-- Certainly in the past. But also in the present. Our moral choices are moral choices for a reason. If we trust in God, we trust in God. If our decisions happen to be immoral, so be it ... we're forgiven, right? What I'm after is that if one set of religious ideas compels, say, the restriction of information flow (as with AIDS issues in the US circa 1985-ff.) and certain negative results occur (say, an epidemic or violent forms of expression), then it does no good to point to the moral compulsion behind those restrictions to demonstrate the merit of the efforts made by those who would restrict to repair the damage done by the restrictions. In other words, while I'm happy that various Christian organizations are out there handling certain aspects of the AIDS problem today, I'm also wondering how much better things would be--rather, how much "not worse"--if harm reduction had not met such moral resistance for giving the appearance of "endorsing sin". On every front we have religious charities handling issues which harm reduction principles would alleviate; AIDS, poverty, drugs, crime. Of historical evil and its relation, specifically, to the Christian conscience, I have a couple of points. First off, if "Christianity" aspires to nothing higher than conditions of Civil War, World War, political strife, or felonious activity, then so it shall be. I had thought part of the reason for being Christian was that it was a "better way of living", even in this world. So, "they do it, too" is even thinner as an excuse for Christian-inspired tragedies than for others. Secondly, are you insinuating that the Christian conscience had nothing to do with the US Civil War, both World Wars, or both Police Actions? How many gangstas with their shiny shiny guns also wear shiny shiny crosses? Greed, hate and fear are part of all human conduct; they are motivating factors every time religion goes South. See, that's why religions need Devils and Satans. Otherwise, people of faith might someday get around to blaming their own selves for their role in whatever tragedy darkens the day. I'll even use that to draw back toward topic: Atheism is not baseless because it assumes nothing about God, which is demonstrably a psychological tool held up by people of faith to escape responsibility for the subtler, more complex ramifications of their behavior. Does that make it any more relevant to the OP? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Tiassa: Atheism is the belief there is no God. And if you want to use the God-as-a-crutch stance, I can throw back at you the denial-of-God-because-that-means-I-would-have-take-a-good-look-at-myself stance Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I ASSUME you think God doesn't exist. What if you are wrong? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
Pash-- Your assumption that I don't believe in God is your own assumption, and drawn, I must add, from a well of comparative ideas so narrow as to require some calculation. On the whole, though, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and there's not much to do about that. Getting into the specific theology of the Christian God is generally useless, since God varies greatly from Christian to Christian. But as the prevailing theologies indicate, if I'm wrong then A) it wouldn't matter anyway because nasty is just how God is, or B) it wouldn't matter anyway because God knows how hard I was looking for truth, and won't fault me for that. Now, Pash ... I've got to ask--Are you ready to stop flinging questions out in defense of a position? By the way, I wanted to comment: Sure, sure. Whatever. But it's a lot more compelling to take a good look at myself when I don't have a cheerleader-excuse for God forgiving every cruelty I commit against other people. After all, some people of faith aren't perfect, just forgiven. And that certainly seems to be the historical trend. It's not like we're arguing two shades of blue. I would claim the sky is blue because when I separate out the spectrum, its primary visual tone falls within wavelengths defined as blue. You, on the other hand (I assume, as such) are arguing the point that the sky is mustard-yellow with puce paisleys merely on the grounds that a book you got in a motel room says so. I gotta admit, it's kinda hard to argue with that ... uh ... "logic". thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Oh I see Tiassa, you have the lock on logic here. I can see you have no idea what you are talking about regarding the Christian God. Apparently, you think He is all nasty and just can't get beyond that. Maybe you have'nt bothered to look into the "hows" and "whys" of Christianity. Too bad. You have the typical "well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong" attitude about the existence of God. What a wonderful gamble you're making. Stay out of Vegas. And God will fault you for the truth, if it was presented to you, and you ignored it. Ok, don't believe in him, it's your choice, part of the freedom He gave to you. And thanks for the cheap shot about the Bible. Very nice. ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
Watch out Tiassa...methinks I detect some peddling of fear from our Christian soldier here. Its the ole 'better safe than sorry sales pitch' that is not that different from an insurance salesman. Western society's 2 biggest scams...organized religion and insurance. He's right about one thing though...Stay out of Vegas, you may actually have a good time if you went. They dont call it Sin City for nothing!!! ------------------ The New Age of Enlightenment is approaching...are you ready?
