Conference hydra::dejavu

This is a transcript of a talk-radio conversation (Station 702, PWV Area of
South Africa).  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview on June 14, 1990 on Satanism on News Talk-Radio 702

Chris Gibbons:  Hallow, Gibbons!

Woman: Chris Gibbons?

cg: Speaking

w: Hi! apparently you people are very interested in Satanism.

cg: We have an interest, yes. 

w: You do.  What is it that you really want to know about it?

cg: Why... why are you calling?  Why be ... why are you asking me this?

w: Right. We've been following the program very carefully and we've basically
   found it very amusing --- how all the Christians
   believe that they have the power to actually exorcise Satan.
   Basically we believe that they don't really know what they are talking
   about due to the fact that they're in exactly the same boat as us anyway.

cg: Are you a practicing Satanist?

w: Well, I do have enough knowledge to be speaking to you, should I
   put it that way.

cg: Let me put the question to you again,  Are you a practicing Satanist?

w: We do have a group that are practicing Satanists, yes.

cg: Now, what about some of the allegations that uh, have been
    made against practicing Satanists such as the sacrifice aspect, the sexual
    aspect and that kind of thing?

w: that is true.

cg: You do sacrifice?

w: Satanists do sacrifice, yes.

cg: What do you sacrifice?

w: It depends on the occasions, I'd say, but basically what we're trying to 
   put  forward is that everybody is Satanist one way or the 
   other.  The governments and all the churches have joined in merely
   by going to war against each other -- that is also a sacrifice which Satan
   enjoys.

cg: Let me put the question to you again -- what do you sacrifice?

w: What do we sacrifice?  As I said it depends entirely on the
   ritual.. If you could put a ritual forward to me I could give you an example.

cg:  Can you describe the kind of rituals that you undertake,  their purpose?

w:  The purpose for them is direct power and there is no bigger power 
    than in blood.  Blood force is the power.  Blood is power.  Blood is life.

cg: Have you ever committed a human sacrifice?

w: I myself?

cg: Yes

w: I might have viewed one but I myself don't commit anything.  
   There's a difference between leaders and followers.  

CG: Are you a leader or a follower?

w: I would say I'm a leader.

cg: An do the leaders practice the sacrifice or the followers?

w: The leaders merely allow the followers to do as their own heart
   desire is and basically mankind desire today is to kill and it has
   been inbred in him in many ways and that is how Satan has actually taken 
   hold of mankind.

cg: But now, surely the practice of sacrifice, of killing anything is against
    the wishes of that person or creature.

w: Not necessarily.

cg: Have you yourself ever witnessed a human being killed?

w: Well, our children do every day, merely when they put their 
   television on.

cg:  That want' the question that I asked you.

w: (laughs) You're very shrewd.

cg: Let me ask you another question -- the relationship between Satanism and 
    the rest of organized religion is defined as evil
    against good -- Satanism is supposed to be evil and everything else
    is supposed to be good.


w:  Well basically there is only one opposing organization and the rest of 
    the world is following Satan anyway, they just don't realize the are.

cg: What do you define as Satanism  -- the worship of the Devil?

w:  It's basically a totally open worship without any excuse.

cg: Without any excuse for what?

w: To cover up for what mankind really wants and has decided to 
   choose, any.

cg: You're saying that mankind is basically evil and therefore should
    just be left to get on with it?

w: No, there is going to be a big war very soon,  we're aware of
   that.  There are only two forces in the universe,  but mankind already
   made his decision long time ago.


cg:  We've  also had suggestions made to us that if people get involved with
     Satanism and then wish to leave it you put, shall we
     say, pressure on them not to leave it.

w: No, we don't .  They've basically  opened themselves to the demons
   that Satan has working on earth and the demons put pressure on 
   them -- not us.

cg: So you're saying that the demons will sort them out.

w:  They always do.

cg:  What is a demon, in fact?

w: A demon is one a of the angels that work with Satan,  that opposed
   right from the beginning.

cg: One of the angels that fell from grace?

w: That's it.

cg: Do you not worry -- and here I put it into a Christian context -- do you
    not worry that by following  the devil you're soul will be cast into 
    eternal damnation?

w:  Everybody dies anyway,  the soul is not immortal, that is where man is 
    totally misled in the first place.  You have one lifetime in which you
    choose and you either choose materialistic gain or spiritual gain and
    anybody who chooses materialistic gain has already made his choice.

cg: What about people who choose spiritual gain, what happens to them?

w: Well, that they know about -- we're obviously not interested in that or else 
   we wouldn't do what we do.

cg: Isn't it a short-term gain?

w: Well, that's a personal choice, everyone has a free will. You either have a 
   good life or you have a lousy life.

cg: What's your life like?

w: I'm pretty content.

cg: What can you tell me? What are you allowed to tell me about the kind of 
    rituals that you practice?

w: Nothing.

cg: Why is that if it's an open religion?

w: Because everybody knows anyway, you've been discussing it all the time, so
   why should I confirm what everybody knows and everybody agrees or else they
   wouldn't condone the kind of entertainment they enjoy.

cg: Do you use drugs during the rituals?

w: most people do today.

cg: And again we come back to the aspect of sacrifice. what about sex,
    does that play a part in the rituals?

w: Very much so.

cg: How did you get involved in it? Can I ask you that?

w: How did I get involved in it?

cg: Yes, how did you start?

w: With astrology

cg: Yes . . . 

w: And the one leads to the other, depends on how powerful you want to
   become I suppose.

cg: How powerful are you?

w: (Laughs.) I can't say.

cg: But you tell me you're a leader of one of the satanic -- is it a
    coven -- is that the right word?

w: No, it's a very big group that's running a lot.

cg: Now, I don't know where you're calling from.

w: No, you don't.

cg: Is it in what we call 702 land, the PWV area?

w: That's correct.

cg: Is Satanism very wide-spread in this part of South Africa?

w: It's everywhere.

cg: Is there any way of knowing that your neighbor is involved in it or not?

w: Well we all know each other.

cg: I mean, if I look over my garden fence, would I be able to tell that
    my neighbor is or is not a Satanist?

w: It depends on what way they show their Satanism, merely by being neutral
   a person is a Satanist. This is what I am trying to explain to you. Satan
   has got everybody who is neutral, there is no such thing as neutrality, you
   either are or you aren't -- it's that simple and the only way you can't be
   is by being a total worshiper of the original Creator which only one sect 
   on earth is any way.

cg: Which sect is that?

w: I can't say, they know who they are.

cg: Why all this secrecy?

w: Why all the secrecy? Well, why all the secrecy? uhm . . . Wouldn't you
   say that the Biblical Scriptures are fairly secret?

cg: No, not at all.

w: Exactly. Anyway that's all I can say, that basically the reason I phoned
   is to basically let you know that whoever is truly interested should know
   that just about everybody on earth today is a Satanist anyway, one way
   or the other, it just depends on how you want to worship him. There are
   many ways of doing it, you can worship him through making God your money
   you can worship him by doing sacrifices, you can worship him by being 
   promiscuous, so people don't realize how powerful he really is, it's just 
   that simple.

cg: At that we'll leave it.

w: Thank you

cg: Thank you for calling.

w: Bye.
_

    Nothing I can put my finger on, but this doesn't ring true to me.  I
    think that there are some people who label themselves Satanists -- some
    innocuous and some not at all so (though I have seen no evidence that
    they create any kind of major social problem, though -- those who cause
    pain and destruction would find another rationalization for doing so
    without Satanism).  This does not seem to me to be one though.  This
    sounds like a person who has strung some random personal thoughts into
    what they think that the "*real* Satanists" think and have decided to
    convince others that such Satanists are around (either as a prank or
    to stir up paranoia against others).

					Topher

    Well, it seems to me that "w" is describing anyone who does
    not follow the spiritual path dictated by the bible
    as a satanist by default.
    
    /bruce

    The woman says that everyone who doesn't belong to a particular sect is
    a Satanist, but she does not explicitly identify that sect as
    Christian.  It's likely that she meant a Christian sect but it could
    also be Islamic, African, Hinduism or an amalgum.  I would also say
    that its a good bet that she is, in actuallity, a member of the sect
    she has in mind.

				Topher

    re .4 (CADSYS::COOPER)/Topher
    
>                                                       I would also say
>    that its a good bet that she is, in actuallity, a member of the sect
>    she has in mind.
    
    	Of course, that may well be true (but which we'll never be able to
    prove without asking her directly), but what she says indicates that
    she is not, but just doesn't care (which gives her whole viewpoint a
    rather fatalistic slant, if you ask me).
    
    	If she were a member of that one sect, why would she keep it a
    secret?  (But for that matter, why did she bother calling in the first
    place, since she was so vague about so many things?)
    
    								-mark.

    .4 - Topher,
    
>                                                       I would also say
>    that its a good bet that she is, in actuallity, a member of the sect
>    she has in mind.
    
    
    That's what came to my mind when I read it too - that she was just
    playing 'devil's advocate', so to speak ;')
    
    Ro
    

    
    What she says is true to me. Satan has a hold on this Earth. Witness
    the latest work he is involved in: Iraq situation,Africa.and,others.
    
    He is very real to me,and,ARROGANT,SURE OF HIMSELF,AND,VERY POWERFULL!
    Although I believe he cannot directly interfere with things on Earth
    ,he can influence,and,he does so,by knowing your weaknesses.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

re:            <<< Note 1359.6 by ATSE::FLAHERTY "The Hug Therapist" >>>
                                 -< nod, nod >-

>    playing 'devil's advocate', so to speak ;')

Well you know, they say playing 'devil's advocate' is just a step away from
satanism. :-)

		Dave

    If this women says she believes everyones
    a satanist, IMHO I think she's on a very
    large ego trip, bored silly, twisted, and
    in need of help.
    
    Get her a skateboard!
    
    

    Re -1
    
    The woman says everyone's a Satanist the way we would say a person's
    an accomplice 'after the fact' if (s)he knows something about a serious
    crime and does not report it. The Catholic Church holds a similar view,
    i.e., sins of omission, in which the sinner does not actively do
    anything sinful, in fact, does nothing but is nonetheless sinning.
    
    While I don't believe in the traditional Satan (the red-garbed,
    pointy-tailed villain of Church lore) I DO believe in evil and somewhat
    agree that every time we do nothing to stop it, we are condoning it.
    
    BTW, I am guilty of it as everyone else.....
    
    Regards,
    
    
    Marilyn
    

The thing that caught my attention (besides the ideas already
commented on) is the woman's comment about "...man's desire to kill".

I agree that there are many violent, vindictive people in this world
but, are we born with an inbred "desire" to kill?  If so, why are there
so many people in the world (so call non-enlightened people) who 
refuse to partake in war?  Why does is seem so easy to denounce war?
...easy, at least for me <:-)...

And, is killing an insect an acceptable way of displaying this so-called
"desire"? 

My basic belief about womankind (and mankind too) is that we are not
killers by nature, but are taught that this is an acceptable way of
displaying aggression (which, in itself, need not necessarily be violent).

It just got me to thinking (as do most topics in this conference!)...

...Susan

    
      We all know, or should know that the Devil/Satan is a big ol lier; he
    tell the truth, mixed with a lie.
    
    Lorenzo
    

    
    What these people(satanists)dont realize,is,that the promises of
    power,is a lie. Satan does as he wishes and doesnt make promises that
    he will keep. They will be under his power,and,will do as he
    wants,because he knows what controls them! His power comes from a
    knowledge of our weaknesses.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    My immediate impression of the transcript was that the person was in
    fact a member of a Christian sect and was "bearing witness" and
    attempting to convince the listeners of the reality of the devil she/he
    believes in - as a way of scaring people into Christianity [and also
    imho this really shows her lack of faith -- that no one follows by
    choice but only through fear].
    
    Briana

    re .14 (ICS::WALKER)
    
>    My immediate impression of the transcript was that the person was in
>    fact a member of a Christian sect and was "bearing witness" and
>    attempting to convince the listeners of the reality of the devil she/he
>    believes in - as a way of scaring people into Christianity [and also
>    imho this really shows her lack of faith -- that no one follows by
>    choice but only through fear].
    
    	The thing about this idea that doesn't make sense is why she didn't
    identify the one sect in particular that she said was the only one
    around that was practicing 'true worship' of the "original Creator". 
    It seemed to me as though she pretty much lumped all brands of
    Christianity together (except for that one sect which she didn't name)
    with the non-Christians who were just as guilty of being satanists for
    participating in the "sacrifice" of human life by modern warfare.
    
    	Without naming that one sect which she alluded to, how could she
    have succeeded in "scaring people into Christianity"?  Although I have
    no idea why she said what she did, her message struck me as being one
    of futility, to the effect that people, whether knowingly or otherwise,
    have made a choice (to not worship God, I suppose) with no future.
    
    								-mark.

Her words did seem to confirm much of what the Bible says.  (For example,
the statement that if you're not for me, you're against me is in the Bible.)
Whether she said this because she is a Christian or because she is a
Satanist (which, almost by definition, recognizes Christianity as the
worship of the "true" God) we cannot know.

The "sect" that she spoke of could only be one possibility, as I 
understand it.  Since Satanism implicitly acknowledges Christianity and
the Bible is clear that all who "believe in the name of the LORD will
be saved", then the "sect" is those who believe (not simply a mental
assent, but rather a life committment) in the LORD.

Collis

RE: .16 (Collis)

    First off, Satanism definitely does *not* presume Christianity.  There
    are Satanic Islamic cults and in theory, a Jew could also be a Satanist
    (though, off hand, I don't know of any, and the view of Satan which
    makes Satanism meaningful exists only as a folk-belief within Judaism).

    Secondly, virtually all Christian sects believe in "the LORD" though
    they disagree on the details as to specifics as to what they believe
    *about* him.  So this in no way specifies the sect in question.

					Topher

RE: .15 (mark)

>    Without naming that one sect which she alluded to, how could she
>    have succeeded in "scaring people into Christianity"?

    There is a presumption that this is a "rational" human being, which
    is almost certainly not true, Satanist or not.

    I do not believe that this is someone attempting to "scare people into
    Christianity" but someone attempting to create an affirmation for her
    beliefs.  If forced to provide a rationale for her actions she would
    probably say something which would amount to giving the members of her
    sect, who "know who they are", evidence for their beliefs.  They, not
    her, can identify themselves to potential recruits as the "true sect"
    fighting the "Satanists" who have revealed themselves on the radio.

    On a deeper level, she is reinforcing her own beliefs.  By creating the
    illusion of what she believes to be true, she manipulates herself to
    strengthen her belief.  People who lie, as has been shown in many
    clever psychological tests, come to believe their own lie somewhat.  By
    "demonstrating" to others, however falsly, the truth of her beliefs
    about the existence and nature of a Satanist conspiracy, she makes it
    that much more real to herself.

    This is a very common pattern among deceivers.  It is one of the
    reasons that the glib dismissal of fake psychics, mediums, healers,
    etc. by the "professional skeptics" is simplistic.

					Topher

    re .18 (CADSYS::COOPER)/Topher
    
>    There is a presumption that this is a "rational" human being, which
>    is almost certainly not true, Satanist or not.
    
    	As you said in your reply title, motivations are complex things,
    which is why I'm a little more reticent than you to figure that the
    woman isn't rational.  What evidence is there that she isn't rational?
    The fact that she's rather vague, or that she made the allegations that
    she did?
    
    	As has been noted, various Christian world-views line up rather
    closely with what the woman said, that the world is essentially divided
    up into only two sides, "We" (Christian) and "They" (non-Christian);
    but does that obligate us to assume that this woman is a Christian (or
    of some other 'nonsatanic' religion) in 'Satanist' clothing, as it
    were, as though only a Christian (or whatever, of some sort) could
    possibly hold such a view?
    
    	Could she not hold her beliefs to be true if she were a "satanist"
    of some sort?  She talks about demons and their influence (or potential
    influence) over people ... is it possible (or reasonable) to figure
    that she might just *have* some sort of dealings with the beings in the
    spirit realm?  Since some of the experiences related in this conference
    appear to attest to the factual existence of spirits, couldn't her
    beliefs be derived from her own contact with them?
    
    	I don't, btw, dispute what you say about "deceivers" (of the sort
    you described) in general, though I don't have much personal experience
    or knowledge about them, either.  Since we're really speculating rather
    freely, what you say isn't out of the realm of possibility; but I'd
    like to see if anyone else can come up with other explanations (which
    aren't necessarily pro-Christian).  You point out that there is a
    common pattern among people who delude themselves along religious
    lines, which leads "professional skeptics" to come to stock conclusions
    out of habit.  By dismissing this woman as an irrational, religious
    crank, could we not be jumping to overly simplistic conclusions
    ourselves?
    
    								-mark

RE: .19 (-mark)

    > What evidence is there that she isn't rational?

    If she is a Satanist of the kind that she claims to be -- a literal
    worshiper of Evil (as opposed to some of the more rational forms such
    as Manichaean Satanism or the rationalized forms such as Anton Levi's
    Satanic Church) -- then she is virtually by definition a sociopath and
    not rational.  In any case if she is a Satanist then her phone call is
    highly irrational.  It only serves to create trouble for the Satanists.

    If she is not a Satanist but a Christian than she is lying -- which is
    serving the Father of Lies -- and is not acting particularly
    rationally.

    That leaves only an irrational prank, a demand for attention, among
    probable explanations of the call, and that is, by definition,
    irrational.

    In addition, the interview sounds almost eerily like transcripts of
    interviews with paranoid schizophrenics.  That doesn't mean that she is
    a clinical paranoid (it takes a lot more than an analysis of patterns
    of exposition to diagnose paranoia), but it suggests that she is
    dealing on this issue in this phone call in a pseudo-paranoid (and
    therefore irrational) way.

    I conclude that whether or not what she says is accurate, we should not
    assume that her motives for making the phone call or saying what she
    chooses to say during are likely to be rational.

>    	Could she not hold her beliefs to be true if she were a "satanist"
>    of some sort?

    She could but it is unlikely that she would have made the phone call.
    Irrational does not mean "meaningless" it means that it may be
    predicated on the assumption that 2+2=5.  It is hard to find *any*
    motive for someone who was a Satanist to call up to say what she seemed
    to want to say.  But there is a reasonable (albeit, irrational) motive
    for someone who is an "anti-Satanist" to have made the phone call and
    to say what she did.

    It's time for some "discourse analysis": let's look at the message she
    seemed to want to give to people:

	1) There are people -- the "active bad guys" -- who are out there
	   doing and worshipping evil in order to gain material mastery
	   over the affairs of the world.

	2) There are one small group of people (large religious groups are
	   generally refered to as "religions" or "denominations", in
	   popular usage "sect" implies a small group) who are the only
	   ones who stand in the way of the bad guys and of Satan Himself.
	   These embattled heros are the only ones who are on God's side,
	   and who understand the Truth (the Satanists also understand the
	   Truth, of course, but choose to reject God).

	3) Everyone else, however well meaning, is a "passive bad guy", and
	   every bit as bad as the "active bad guys".  They do not know the
	   Truth so what they believe and what they say are Lies from the
	   Father of Lies.

    Obviously, I've filled in quite a bit here, but I think it is a fair
    rendition of the implied message.  Everything else, whether or not it
    is true, would seem to be said to *support* this message -- to add
    versimlitude.  Such a message (if meant seriously) could have only come
    from two sources: from someone who believed themselves to be in
    category 1 or from someone who believed themselves to be in category 2.
    But someone who is in category 1 and trying to justify their actions
    would be extremely unlikely to mention category 2 at all.  The
    "important" thing for them would be that *everyone* is a Satanist
    anyway, minor exceptions not being important (and would almost
    certainly be rationalized away, in any case).  This message, even
    though supported by providing supposed evidence for the existence of
    category 1 is only likely to come from someone in category 2.

>    You point out that there is a common pattern among people who delude
>    themselves along religious lines, which leads "professional skeptics"
>    to come to stock conclusions out of habit.

    I did not restrict the pattern to people who delude themselves along
    religous lines, or even to people who delude themselves at all.  I
    was saying that conviction, justified or not, sometimes leads to or
    accompanies deception.  That people sometimes attempt to demonstrate
    the truth by telling lies -- confident that they are not really lying
    since the truth is supported.  Among others who do this, are many of
    the "professional skeptics" I was referring to.

    Nor did I claim that this leads them to reach stock conclusions *out of
    habit*.  They hold a worldview not to different from the one described
    above.  There are the embattled, minority good-guys (skeptics,
    rationalists, scientists, i.e., themselves), the evil bad-guys who
    consciously and deliberately commit fraud and who must be battled, and
    everyone else, who are preyed on by the bad-guys and who serve
    irrationalism simply by not being skeptics.  It is very important for
    their worldview that people be identified as "black knights" for them
    to do battle with, so that some of the dupes can be redeamed by
    rationalism -- though most will inevitably spend their whole lives
    without seeing the "light".  Occasional fuzzy lines in the categories
    can be accomidated, but they must be seen as exceptions, or the crusade
    is brought into question.

    (I should make clear, here, that not everyone who is a skeptic, or even
    all those who claim to be one, are "professional skeptics" of the type
    I'm describing).

    > By dismissing this woman as an irrational, religious crank, could we
    > not be jumping to overly simplistic conclusions ourselves?

    I'm not dismissing her as a crank, I'm *judging* her to be one.  Even
    presuming that a full-fledged, world-wide Satanist conspiracy exists,
    and has actual congress with true Evil, I would judge the probability
    low that this woman is a member of it.  She might be, but it is
    unlikely.  In investigating this sort of thing, you have to judge each
    "case" as to whether it is worth pursuing.  Whether or not "real"
    Satanists exist, cranks definitely do, and you are unlikely to find the
    purported real ones if you do not make judgements and instead spend all
    your time treating each case, however farfetched, as true.  Maybe
    you'll miss the meat this way, but you are less likely to than if you
    bury it in the trash.

					Topher

Re:  1359.17

  >There are Satanic Islamic cults and in theory, a Jew could also be a 
  >Satanist

Thanks for point that out.

What I should have said is that Satanism presumes much of what is
written in the Bible, much of which both Moslems and Jews accept.

Satanism is usually thought of in terms of Christianity and, indeed,
this is the way I think of it.

  >Secondly, virtually all Christian sects believe in "the LORD" though
  >they disagree on the details as to specifics as to what they believe
  >*about* him.  

But the criteria is not based on what the "sects" believe about him,
but the criteria is instead *God's* criteria which Christians accept as
being given in the Bible.  (I believe all "sects" of Christians accept
the Bible, insofar as what we have today is accurate.)  So, what I said
is still true.

Collis

    re .20 (CADSYS::COOPER)/Topher
    
    	Thanks for the reply.  I hadn't really understood what you meant
    about the professional skeptics themselves being deluded and resorting
    to lies (in support of their conclusions which they perceive to be the
    truth), so thanks for the additional explanation.
    
    	I did, in fact, gather that you were "judging" the woman to be a
    crank.  I used the word "dismissing" in the sense that having judged
    her to be a crank, we could then dismiss the notion that what she said
    represented anything worthy of any serious consideration.
    
>    If she is a Satanist of the kind that she claims to be -- a literal
>    worshiper of Evil (as opposed to some of the more rational forms such
>    as Manichaean Satanism or the rationalized forms such as Anton Levi's
>    Satanic Church) -- then she is virtually by definition a sociopath and
>    not rational.  In any case if she is a Satanist then her phone call is
>    highly irrational.  It only serves to create trouble for the Satanists.
    
    	One thing I noticed is that it was the radio host, and not the
    woman, who focused on the aspect of "worshipping evil", and asked a
    series of leading questions (I suppose) with the hope of getting her to
    admit to something as blatant as that.  He seemed very keen to know all
    about the ritualistic aspects of her 'religion'; but yet, that's not
    the kind of information she volunteered.  At the end of her call, she
    said that a person could "worship Satan" not just by "sacrificing" to
    him (and by implication, doing other things of an overtly "religious"
    nature), but by being materialistic ("making God your money"), or by
    being promiscuous, and presumably by making other choices of a sort
    that are not obviously religious by outward appearance.
    
    	If we define the "worship of Evil" in a certain way, yes, a
    "worshipper of evil" would likely be an irrational sociopath; but the
    things that she spoke about (as being forms of "evil") are not what the
    world in general considers either catagorically irrational or
    sociopathic.  Mr. Gibbons was evidently hoping to extract a sensational
    admission that she, as a "Satanist", practiced human sacrifices; but
    her answer was much more subtle, and addressed the practices of people
    and nations as a whole which, in one way or another, "sacrifice" human
    lives for whatever reason (for a cause, or for some form of gain, or
    in pursuit of personal pleasure).
    
    	Although the rhetoric of politicians, and social and religious
    leaders often ennobles those deaths, so that we (the ordinary people)
    might see them as "meaningful" and righteous, doesn't what the woman
    says really lead to a very *rational* question, as to whether the
    practices of people and nations which leads to the waste and death of
    so many human lives are not evil but for the very reason that they
    cause so much suffering and death?
    
    	Take her statement about promiscuity as another example.  Now, yes,
    one *might* see it as another cloaked attempt by meddling,
    self-righteous, Bible-thumping, "Christian moralists" of the world to
    rag a little more about the *Evils of sex*; but it's possible to take a
    much more practical and realistic look at some of the effects of
    promiscuity (in some parts of the world).  As a case in point, take the
    facts that the New York Times has been reporting on the front page for
    the last fews days about the spread of AIDS in Africa because of the
    cultural ubiquity of promiscuous behavior.  One doesn't have to be a
    frothing moralist to see that people are dying (early) because of
    promiscuous behavior, and leaving children behind, who sometimes
    themselves have the disease.  If "Satanism" is the embodiment of
    everything "Evil", is this sort of human tragedy not "satanic" for
    being a type of evil?  Isn't it true to say that the end result of the
    promiscuity in Africa is the "sacrifice" of human lives?
    
    	I don't think the whole focus of what she said dwelt only the
    things which we sterotypically view the "Bible-thumpers" of the world
    as getting bent out of shape over, since she seemed to indict them for
    hypocrisy as well, in that they might rant over one evil in the world,
    and then go home and turn on the TV and allow themselves to be
    entertained by viewing some other form of "evil."  
    
    	Couldn't her point be that "evil" is really more subtle, and maybe
    more casual that most of us even think about, and that the "road to
    ruin" (as it were) is as much paved by our not thinking about the long
    term consequences of our actions (and choices in life) as it is by
    purposely engaging in some blatantly sociopathic activity (like
    murder)?
    
    	Of course, none of this explains why she called, and doesn't prove
    that she *isn't* deluded and simply seeking sensational attention; but
    (to me) she didn't exactly sound full of either self-pity of
    self-aggrandizement, which attention grabbers often are.
    
    								-mark.

Well reasoned response, Mark

RE: .22 (mark)

    Well thought out reply, Mark -- though I don't agree with it.  I don't
    have the time today for the detailed response it deserves, but I'll
    make some quick comments.

    A rational case can be made against promiscuity, both under current
    conditions and as a general principle in a densly populated world.  But
    she made no such case, and we much more frequently here a religious/
    moralistic argument against promiscuity (generally very broadly, I
    might even say "promiscuously," defined) sometimes with a
    pseudo-rationalistic addition these days that AIDS "proves" that
    promescuity is against God's will (that doesn't mean that I reject
    moralistic arguments as "improper", just that they are not
    rationalistic).  Of all the "rational evils" of the world, promescuity
    is only one of them.  Any special emphasis on this one, is likely to
    be due to a moralistically inspired bias towards it as of special
    interest.  And although her arguments against promescuity could have
    been "rational" we have no basis to assert that they were.

    She avoided details about her rituals, it is true.  Was this because
    she wasn't interested in discussing the true details, or because she
    didn't want to have to invent plausible details as she went along?
    Notice that the details of the rituals were *not* part of what I
    interpretted as her central message.

    Although her message about the evils of society was not "mainstream"
    (American) bible-thumping, it *was* a message that is universal in
    almost all cults (which doesn't necessarily make it wrong, of course).
    Everyone not a member of the cult is evil.  Christian cults tend to
    concentrate on sex and money (especially, give up your worldly goods
    and give them to the sect where they will serve God) as the essential
    evils of the world -- as opposed to ritual as found in many
    non-Christian cults.

    And although it took some questioning to get to it, she did admit to
    having taken part in (and by implication, a leading part in) human
    sacrifice.  I agree, her main message was that this was not
    particularly important -- that the practices of *everyone* outside the
    special sect were equally if more subtly evil.  Keep in mind that she
    almost certainly knew where the questions were going to lead, he
    probably had not just suddenly started associating human sacrifice with
    Satanism.  Her main message was not about deliberate Satanism, if I am
    right, but that everyone who is not one of her "good guys" is a
    Satanist whether they know it or not.  I agree that her message is
    "more subtle" than that there are Satanists out there drinking the
    blood of babies -- but the message is one that you can hear from almost
    any street corner preacher.

					Topher

    There are relatively few groups left who are exclusive in that they
    think that they are the only true worshipers. Most christian groups
    are quite ecumenical as to who they believe will be saved, at least
    within christianity. Undoubtably, she was influenced by some cult,
    possibly being a former member. I did notice that the women did
    not believe in an immortal soul, which narrows the possibilities.
    If she doesn't believe in an immortal soul, then  does she believe
    that God  ultimately kills the wicked? If so, then  wouldn't God be the
    ultimate Satanist? Wouldn't this "God" still be a kinder one than
    the Christian God who fries his unbelievers forever? If this doctrine
    really represents the christian God, this women's "rebel angels" are
    justified in rebelling. If not, then most Christians are part of
    the problem. Jesus said, "if you have seen me you've seen the Father."
    Perhaps, the whole point of his showing up was to prove that even
    the Scriptural view of God up until that time was incomplete.
    
    	I notice intriguing parallels between her premise that practically
    everyone, christian or not is a "satanist" and What the protagonist
    in Robert Anton Wilson's novel Unmasking  the Illuminati learned. In the
    book a young Scholar becomes involved in christian mysticism. He
    finds himself involved in a struggle against some evil force that
    in the end is related to what he's into. I could tell more, but
    why spoil a good story for someone? I recommend it to everyone except
    charismatics. They won't understand how it relates to them and will
    only become more smug! Rumor has it that something(or someone) is
    trying to suppress this book. The bookstore owner said it was no
    longer in print after two publishers were persecuted out of business.
    
    john
    

    If you've got a copy of that book John, I'd love to read it. :-)
    
    It always seemed to me that if God existed at all, that God must be
    the sum total of all that is both good and bad.
    
    That would mean that Jesus and Satan would be two different aspects
    of the same face (the same personality).
    
    Perhaps life is God having an identity crisis :-)....  perhaps our
    experiences will turn out to be the determining factor in God's 
    decision about what He/Whatever wants to be.   That would make our
    constant wrangling about opposites, much ado about nothing, wouldn't
    it? :-)
    
    Mary
           

    re: 26
    
    A few years ago I heard a preacher in a Southern Baptist Church say
    about the same thing.  It shocked the socks off his flock.  That
    part of his sermon, which is probably all anyone remembers about it,
    went something like this:
    
    God created the heavens and the earth.  He created man in His image. 
    Because we are male and female, God must also be male and female.
    Because we are sexual, God must also be sexual.
    Because we have a sense of humor, God must also have a sense of humor.
    Because we feel anger, love, fear, hate, God must also feel these
    things, or he would not have been able to instill them in us.
    Because we have the capacity for evil, God must also have the capacity
    for evil.  Satan is the dark side of God.
    
    Ellen
      

    
    re: .27 (Ellen)
    
    See note 1043.  This is something Jung talked about....
    
    
    guy

Re:  .27

Sounds like your preacher was making God out of the image of man and
not vice versa.

    
    ...just what would the difference be......?......

Re:  What would the difference be between devising man in God's image and
  God in man's image?

After starting an answer, I realized it wouldn't help so...

  No comment.

Collis

    There isn't much of a difference at all.

    It's *hard* to think of God in non-human terms, isn't it ?
    	A giant turtle or bug is obviously silly, and pantheistic
    	notions about cosmic unity are so darn hard to visualize.

    No, a giant turtle or bug isn't silly.  God is all of those things as
    well.

   1.  To say that God is made in Mankind's image is to limit Mankind. 
          And this seems to be the trend.  We tend to hang attributes on
    God that limit God to our meager and narrow concepts. WE tend to believe
    that God would have the same emotional responses toward something
    mundane that we would (or should) have and we tend to end up
    rationalizing our understanding of God to meet our own needs.
     
   2. To say that Mankind is made in God's Image is to say that Mankind is as
    unlimited as is God.
    	Anytime we attempt to limit our own concepts of ourselves and
    others, we are not living up to the fullest image and thus potential that 
    God allows us. This can be so by default of the fact that God made us in 
    His/Her/Its unlimited image and not vise versa.
    
    I hope this is clear in its brevity.  I think there is far wider ranging
    implications in the second statement, than in the first.  And although
    we tend to pay lip service to the second statement, we actually end up
    effecting the first statement.
    
    Ernie
    
      

    re: .35,
    
>   1. To say that God is made in Mankind's image is to limit Mankind. 
>   2. To say that Mankind is made in God's Image is to say that Mankind is as
>    unlimited as is God.
    
    	I think I feel what you are expressing, and I probably agree with
    the spirit of it.  The words don't really make any sense to me though
    ...  How can 1 & 2 logically coexist in the same frame
    of reference, and yet still give preference to one statement over the other
    ?  If Mankind is unlimited as in #2, then #1 is the same
    statement as #2, as I think Mary suggested in saying that there was
    no difference ...
    
    	God is unlimited,
    	Mankind is unlimited,
    	One reflects the other One,
        infinity == infinity
    	(Gee, mathematical philosophy is fun for the feeble minded :-))
    	
    	You must be using a more limited definition of Mankind in #1 ?
    
"As above, so below."

	The Principle of Correspondence, an occult aphorism,
		from the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus

"As a bug, so be low."

	Nonsensical twist on the above occult aphorism, emphasizing
	the that bugs are divine, as they are made in God's image.
	Man has the humorous tendency to create likenesses of God in his own 
	image, simply because he understands his own language and has
    	trouble empathizing with the typical bug.
		from Todd's Big Book of Occult Jokes :-)

    .36:
    
    	Yes, your conclusion is valid if your premis is the second
    statement: that Mankind is patterned after God which is unlimited.
    
    The first statement does not start with that premis.  Its premis might
    be that God was **invented** after Mankind  as a means to explain the
    reasons things happen to us the way they do and a need for the outer
    form of rules and regulations.  From this vantage point, we try to
    reduce something that is outside our means of understanding into
    something comprehensible.  In achieving this end we are limited in
    defining this God with that which we are familiar; our own feelings, 
    beliefs, biases and even prejudices.  These attitudes are all the tools 
    we have  to try to understand something that is incomprehensible.   
    
    	So even though there may be a God that is unlimited, one's attempt to
    define, classify, and justify this God according to whatever doctrine, or
    dogma is an attempt by individuals to create a god in his or her own
    image. The end result is a very limited and limiting god that rules
    this individual.
    
    Yes the second statement seems the more accurate and it is a paradigm
    of the first statement.  A paradigm does not exclude other ideas, it 
    includes other ideas.  
    
    
    For example, the statement:  Since we are made in God's image, we too have 
    the creative abilities and powers to create miracles that God
    possesses- is a paradigm and makes complete sense from the perspective of 
    the second statement.  But when we try to reduce God into docrines and
    dogmas, such as religion, cults, etc, we generally cannot accept this larger
    idea because it falls outside the limited image we have made of God.
    
    This limited vision of God is not wrong or even incorrect;it's just a
    partial and limited perspective of all that is God.
    
        I understand the difficulty in seeing the difference between the
    two statements, and as one's awareness expands, one is able to see more
    and more the inter-relationship between all that exists.  All that
    exists is truly ONE and the same thing.
    
    
    Ernie
    

    
    I believe that God is energy, and we can all tap into it, it's just
    that some are more sensitive to it than others.   
    
    As for God being inside everything, I'll borrow Alan Watts example of
    what the inside really is...if one sees a grape, then one is looking at
    the outside of the grape.  If the grape is cut in half, we (as humans)
    still only see the outside(s).  Therefore, for as many times as we cut
    the grape, we can never see the inside where God exists, with human eyes. 
    Is this pantheism?  I don't believe so.  It's panentheism - we are *in*
    God and God is *in* all.
    
    God truly is closer to us than our hands and feet.
    
    Cindy