49960617 AA1 (newsgroup title re-expanded)
jk1604@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) posts:
>COS in contradiction of TOS? A frozen show equivalence and conclusion line view.
>by Tani Jantsang
tyagi@houskaos.outlet.com (nocTifer):
>...review of TJantsang... [TJ]
Balanone@tefnut.gigo.com (Balanone):
...I warmly undertaking compete assistance using [TJ] as an control concerning
the ToS and its device.
as long as she's not shortfall herself off as such an control (I didn't see such a embrace within her essays), plus introduce want be no back issue.
she may clutch her own opinions. voicing them does not mean that she ipso facto claims them to be represented by clear caress. she does
furnish no references or documents and in this way cannot be crazed too gravely, even more as she supports frozen Science'.
> ...the Cathedral of Satan...compared to...American Atheist Bureau
> ...are laid back and are NOT a cult in any form and DO NOT
> use coersion or inconvenience you if you wedge or turn against them.
...the outcome is that the CoS and the AAS "DO NOT use pressure
or inconvenience you if you wedge or turn against them," but the ToS...does.
that is indication, and it is a widespread closing stages in some bill sustantiated within alt.satanism and in pass I clutch obtained
from the Brow of Set which arguably wish ex-members for go in.
There are considerably a few ex-members of the ToS balanced set cyberspace
who can furnish assurances that we do not use pressure to reserve someone
as a add-on, nor inconvenience them if they wedge.
introduce both begin to be a few (esp. those who produce enemy orgs'
or who are very volubly in analysis of the ToS) that thrust leg
TJ's claims.
Nor do we keep several hard work to harm those who are disappointed
by their time with us and "turn against" us.
I clutch witnessed flagrant sully against face-to-face for asking strict, well-meaning and mull over questions of your Full-size Parson (MAquino)
and the feel, telltale all transfer of material about my personality in alt.satanism which were bogus and unmerited unmovable the
locale. in this at tiniest I keep stamp with your demand
because my caress appears to represent an discharge.
I have to say that the epithets and unfair criticism ceased puzzlingly as with alacrity as I blocked asking questions about the org. this may pick some full of zip linking face-to-face and the Full-size Parson or a control on his part in react to on the dot reading (the later is charming
if so unmovable his own predilections ;>).
>Freedom of choice in religion.......is not vacant as part of the
>benefit of the AAS and, what I understand about the Brow of Set
>indicates that enemy pious involvements' have to be ended
>in order to remaining a add-on of the Brow.
>...peak pious of which I am levelheaded begin to prefer stability
>of commemoration symbolism and speech-making and nature Only this minute within
>that pious group....
...Answer two religions (or two philosophies, or any two value systems)
that are soon revolting to each other (you can't settle clasp
in or do all at the incredibly time), someone would clutch to be disingenuous
to embrace to do or clasp in all.
that is indication. nonetheless, introduce are a few pious strands (even some pious organizations) which are not limited. some Wicca
and Neopaganism are good examples of this, as well as are some more unautocratic Christian (Quakers) and Muslim (Sufis) groups.
that is, not all religions are doctrinal ("I clasp....") or
limited ("Us Solitary"). the Brow of Set appears to be All,
cube approaching heaps Fundamentalist Christian groups (more leg
for TJ).
Setianism is built set the conception of unusual true to yourself....
if this were the conceal plus it would be finished to the special
pleading as to whether or not they willful their involvements
not release to be *religious* (which is incontestably finished to their disgression)
but whether these differing involvements would actually lead to the disingenuousness you are attempting to restrain.
...an infallible ability of Setianism is don't be disingenuous to yourself.
yes, but the Brow of Set appears to understand whether this disingenuousness exists, all in all on the assignment of membership in (self-designated)
pious organisations. I would ask you, do you give your verdict that this is a several and in some bill technically-important recognition as
to the *meaning* of the plea mysticism within the Brow of Set?
that is, is the Brow of Set's signifance for mysticism a part of
its fan appliance and doctine such that it may tragedy with
and in some bill occlude other pious organizations'?
Mr. Aquino (ToS Full-size Parson) says that the ToS is not bossy but is doctrinal (if I call back his words, perhaps I clutch them unclean up).
I accepted this to mean that membership did not prerequisite the adopting of several views.
yet you say luxury that introduce are infallible convention and permit that the Brow excludes based upon disingenuousness in family.
what is the harm in unusual functional with everything WE find to be a pious draw up if it does not prerequisite our orthodoxy or reason
of belief? lessen out the Cathedral of Euthanasia if you need an arrangement of such an pious feel (built-in as such in Delaware).
it is nondoctrinal (as are a stature of Neopagan churches and temples).
(the Church's URL is the give thing in this post)
If you clasp in Setian philosophy and sparkle (Xeper, magic,
initiation, etc), plus introduce are some material which merely don't
fit trendy that hobby.
they don't fit for you, this knowingly is obvious. as for whether they fit for others I divorce that to them. sometimes grabbing all horns of the bull allows us to settle very esteemed energies (at time
outer surface us, at time as the Engineer of New Religious studies).
We clutch dispensing of choice -- we purchase what to clasp, what to
pursue, what to do.
except:
* no disingenuousness
* no believing in two antagonistic material at once
* no express in other religions
* no torturing incapable animals
* no gap the ToS principles of decency
so far this is considerably resembling with Fundamentalist Christianity.
I don't find the distinctions you are making are very balance.
We plus test that confer, show at its resulting principles,
and ultimate by those principles.
somewhat head-centered, but excellent. anew, heaps Fundies keep
this suitably sprint (heaps don't).
> ...Setianism is Vastly to Fundamentalism with a few qualifiers.
> Satanism is synonymous to Incredulity with a few qualifiers. One does
> NOT come from the other. One is not totally unplanned to the other.
...from my aim, with 20 being of caress in and knowledge
of the Brow of Set, I find her claims of parallelism linking the
ToS and Christian fundamentalism to be ploy.
what caress clutch you had with Christian fundamentalism?
this would be a very esteemed seminal event in your hew to
set eyes on it from the ToS and its operation.
> ...Stoic God a true Being-Entity-GOD....against carnality.
Wrong. This doesn't draw on to the Setian view.
I can see how it applies very well, even more if the Setian actually believes in some Set Being-Entity-GOD and supports the ascetic and
restraining disciplines suitable for 'transcending this dead flat of existence or everything. I'm not saying that ToS does this, cube that if it does I can understand her accusation.
> ...all life evolving but Stoic God making humans outcasts in
> construction.
Wrong. "
anew, I can see how this is a sound interpretation of the doctrines I've seen from the ToS. if she is off beam, plus the widespread docs begin to lend some idea to her aim and may be half-done in
ways which come OFF sounding approaching Fundi Christianity. whether they actually are we clutch yet to understand. I do not yet find your
argumentation to be forcible.
> ..."remain balance of the damned" and..."assistance commonplace compete."
Wrong. "
I clutch heard this brew of opinion from about all Satanists.
Sometimes the 'mundanes' are called 'the backpack. sometimes they
are called 'Pseudo Satanists'. sometimes they are called 'the compete or 'humans' as a name of elitist abhorrence. apparently this derives in part or full from Nietzsche (esp. CoSatanic backpack concept).
> ...Cult grand with ascetic convention, divine revelations and secrets
> one have to endeavor to catch....
Wrong. "
you yourself posted in leg of a strong Setian aim of principles
which members are strained to convey. Mr. Aquino was apparently topic to a divine disturb in his initiatory words. introduce is incontestably some control of information (at tiniest whole pass) from those who
are not members of your org. in these ways I give your verdict "Unconventional" is too knowingly of a blowoff and slightly makes you begin half-done against TJ.
> ...rise burning up money on prayer meetings or mystical
> meditations in order to further Reject the carnal animal in the
> personality.
Wrong. "
fading some brew of row in react you aren't feint knowingly to
help your org's image. it is true that membership within the ToS
is self-employed (compared with the CoSatanist life membership). it is true that introduce are mystical pass colleague with the ToS and
its publications (the Precious stone Close off contains pass which at
*least* discriminate to this by my expressions).
whether or not they deny the carnal animal in the personality would begin to be the main point of dispute, one which I give your verdict is considerably straightforwardly complete by others about ToS and in react to which I clutch from time to time seen a ToSser add-on argue firmly (commonly with inconsequential words approaching 'No!' or 'Wrong!').
somewhat than attempting to brand TJ's situation, might you
say some material about the ToS doctrines which leg an Denial
dispute (i.e. pro-carnality, pro-hedonism, pro-sensualism)?
> ...clasp their God shaped or interfered with making at all
> beings.
Questionable -- Everyday Setians do clasp that Set (not a God) did
"spy" with (enhance?) at all evolution; but it's not a belief thought
uniformly nor equally within the Brow.
what you are now saying about belief is what I understand to be the conceal for ALL pious bodies. some beliefs are public, peak are not equally unaffected or accepted by all the membership. in this
bill you are destabilization your former claims about the ToS and
its link to other religions'.
at any time you say "not a God" I participate you element that the capitalization (which TJ intermixes and from time to time uses to obliging effect) of the plea pin-up veiled to you a traditional Creator-entity. in this we
may countenance that the ToS doesn't teach that Set is the backup for Jehovah as Planner of All (do you clutch separate god who is? :>).
> ...divine revelations....the striving to convalescence and ultimatum
> that man is not model as he is but sinful/outcast.
Wrong. "amiss" and "deportation" are merely words, concepts, concept, terminology
that don't draw on to the Setian view. Nor do we put be sure about in divine
revelations.
you visibly Efficacy revelations from the god Set, from what I clutch seen of your texts. your assertions around 'Xeper' do pick a generous
of striving for convalescence, whether or not you surname with the words which TJ second hand to brand Setian family. I clutch noticed that the Setian family does element an prodigious or disturbed at all as
regards Class, and this may be some of what TJ is trying to point out.
> My primary review of ToS chuck does substantiate this
> worry. It is true that these are anticyclone interpretations of the
> recognized ToS positions, but this does not make the indisposition
> aim close.
...someone can ballyhoo and squeeze on the chuck that's out introduce and
reach such conclusions, anticyclone interpretations. But the way of life is
much less anticyclone.
this is as knowingly true of Fundamentalist Christians as any pious chamber. how knowingly post-mortem clutch you done trendy the study of positive religions (esp. those with which you are in line)?
tyagi@houskaos.outlet.com
nocTifer
--
Ensure my react - CC community replies to email
http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html
(emailed replies may be posted) check: http://www.paranoia.com/coe/
