Conference hydra::dejavu

    Define "demon worshipper."  Your personal name tag ["Satan I bind
    you, in Jesus name!!"] indicates a way one can _control_ devils
    or demons (what some of the Medieval sorcerers tried to do
    ceremonially; check such items as the _Sworn Book_ for examples
    [but don't "play" with their ceremonies] of how they tried).  But
    that's far from anything approximating worship.
    
    
    I cannot imagine anyone wanting to worship a demon.
    
    Steve Kallis,  Jr.
    

    I also do not worship demons, by my definition.  But my mother-in-law,
    raised as a fundamentalist-type Southern Baptist, would surely believe
    that I worship them, did she know that I study astrology and read
    people's horoscopes.  Further, she would believe that since I am
    not a regular Christian church-goer (Buddhist temples, Wiccan groves,
    Jewish synagogues wouldn't count either--must be a Christian church
    or no cigar) that this means that I am a demon-worshipper, or
    potential Satanist, by default.
    
    Even if she believes this, I feel that it is not true becuase:
    I don't try to conduct ceremonies where I promise control of my 
    soul to some entity in exchange for temporal power; don't try to 
    raise entities to get them to do my bidding; no entity that I know 
    of has ever tried to contact or posess me, nor have I tried to make 
    such a thing happen.  Are these the kind of activities that you'd 
    define as demon-worship?
    
    Marcia

    Re .2:
    
    >Even if she believes this, I feel that it is not true becuase:
    > ...
    
    What she (or anyone) elsde believes wouldn't make you a worshipper.
    It's what _you_ believe.
    
    However, this does have a serious side:  during the witch hysterias
    in Europe and the English American colonies, whether a person was
    a witch or not was irrelevant.  If the others (townspeople) thought
    that person was, whether actually guilty or not, that person was
    dealt with (hanged, burned, drowned ... whatever).
    
    I usually don't get this personal about myself, but I'm a devout
    (though nonaffiliated) Christian; however, sone of my Christian
    brothers and sisters, particularly those of some fundamentalist
    sects probably would accuse me of being something akin to a demon
    worshipper because I happen to have some knowledge about paranormal
    matters.  And I'd bet a number of folk in this Conference would
    be regarded similarly.
    
    Fortunately, this is not a time of witch hysteria or there
    wouldn't even be a DEJAVU conference.  At least not a public one... 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.     

    Re.0
    
    That's a very strange question, in my opinion, and I don't really 
    understand why anyone would ask such a question here.
    

    
    
    	.0
    
    		Why do you want to know?  Just curiousity or do you
    need help?
    
    	The phrase "Satan I bind you, in Jesus Name!!" is often used
    in charismatic or pentacostal churches that I have been affiliated
    with.  Exorcism is also still practiced in these churches. 

    	If you have a problem, I might be of assistance but I would
    rather discuss it by mail.
    
    	Jayna
    	

    
    
    	re .0
    
    	Lorenzo, I'm curious why you asked the question in the first
    	place.  Did you encounter someone or something which prompted
    	your inquiry?  
    
    	I personally choose the light and must admit to some serious
    	nervousness around folks who believe in the 'non-light/darkness/
        ignorance' or whatever you want to call it.  I once knew someone
    	who was adept at manipulating the energies - they did so for
    	their own advantage and they were able to cause the physical
        body to become ill (by manipulating the chakras) - I won't go
    	on. I witnessed this and frankly I wouldn't have believed it
        if I hadn't been close to it. Frankly, that's the closest I care
        come in contact with that kind of 'misuse' of energy...which
        encompasses what I think of when I hear the term 'devil
        worshiping'.
    	
        Polarity refers to the manifestation of opposing tendencies,
        duality; plus 'n minus, neg. & positive, good 'n evil, black
        and white....the question begs, can we really have one without
        the other..is it a natural state (whether that be a physical
        manifestation or a religious belief)..and what purpose does
        it have?  all interesting questions.
    
    	I think there is such a thing as 'mass mind sets' and by that
        I mean a group or groups of people sharing a strong common
        belief which can empower thoughtforms to a point where they
        have an impact on physical manifestation.  I think ulilizing
        the natural subtle energies by individuals who share common
        negative beliefs can have serious consequense (consciously
        or unconsciously), because energy can be manipulated by 
        thought/ritual and through a number of commonly known techniques.
        Attach a negative mindset (either individual or collective)
        and you and have a potential problem.
    
        It's important to understand the principles around energy (a
        difficult task in itself) before fooling around with involking/
        projecting or just plain 'playing' with it...and the cautions
        noted in this notesfile are well headed for they are based in
        documented (if not ligitimzed) accounts of how folks can get
        themselves and others into unexpected difficulties with serious
        consequense.
            
        Forgive the soapbox; it's a serious subject in my opinion.
    
    	Lora

    	Anyone who is really caught up in something *really* negative
    would probably be heavily into secrecy, and so is unlikly (in my
    opinion) to be answering your note here.   
    
    	Some people see many demons where none (or few) are.   Do you
    have reason to suspect them here?    Most of the people in the
    Dejavu notes file are positive in their approach to life.   I think
    you may find more "demons" in the "Soapbox" notes file or similar
    places where people drag out their ideas about violence and politics.
    
        I detect a hint in your question (and personal name entry) that
    you would like to challenge the beliefs of those who are participating
    in this conference.   Do you disapprove ?
    
    	To me, your question reads almost like an accusation.   Was your
    mind already made up when you wrote it?    If no one answers your
    question "yes", will you believe there are demons here anyway??
    Do you believe that people who don't share your religion will go
    to hell ?
    
	Alan.

    Re last several:
    
    Please, let's not make assumptions about the author of .0.  Until
    he says what his purpose is in asking such a question, we should
    not accuse him of challenging any of our beliefs.  He may simply
    be curious or in need of help.
    
    I agree with the person who said that anyone who is seriously into
    devil/demon worship would most likely not be an active participant
    in this conference.
    
    Elizabeth
    

         My belief is that anyone who opens him/herself up to worship
    of any type is opening up to the potential for harm.  Opening yourself
    up to obvious "evil" is one thing, but just imagine the harm you
    can do to your self-esteem and self-love by turning your power over
    to something you think is "safe."  Ask any cult followers or
    anyone who has allowed their responsibility to be taken away from
    them.  Sorry, folks, it ain't gonna work!  The only demons there
    are are the ones you allow or create in your reality, whether
    they are seen as demons (i.e., devils) or not.  Throughout this
    conference there have been many suggestions, many of them quite
    valid (in my opinion) of ways in which to "block" these vampiristic
    energies.  Step once more, however, and create positively.
    In other words, are you running away from fear (and therefore making
    fear choices) or are you running towards love (and all things that deal
    with positive growth?)  Just turn the other cheek...meaning, just
    look at things differently.  None of us needs to look very far to
    see "souls" that are seeing things in a less than positive manner...
    our media shows us these types daily...many of those around us are
    also "doom-and-gloomers."  Do you really want to spend time and
    energy with these?  Or would you rather spend time and space with
    those who feel positive and helpful energy?  The choice is clearly
    ours.  If someone asks for help, we decide...to help or
    not...remembering that ultimately the responsibility is theirs.
    So then we apply understanding and remain in dominion, whatever
    way we decide to move.  Protect yourself if you feel you must...
    trusting everyone is irresponsible...knowing who and when to trust
    indicates a level of self-love.  In regards to .0, perhaps it is
    a person who has made some serious choices that have not been 
    helpful and is "stuck" there.  Maybe the question asked was a 
    way for him to break "free" of that.  Perhaps the best way to respond
    is to not respond at all...demonstrating that the question does
    not compute with the positive thrust of this conference.  The 
    responses, do, after all, provide a feedback from which energy
    can be drawn...the recipient is in "charge" of its direction.
         Whenever I am "challenged" in my beliefs, I ask myself why
    I allowed that to enter in my reality...oftentimes its because of
    my own self-doubt.  To the extent that I allow it to run off of
    me, is to the extent that my doubts are dissipating, and I don't
    mean by playing ostrich and hiding my head in the sand.  My message,
    then?  "Don't let it get to ya!"
      
    Frederick
    

    Reply to .0;
    
    If I had little demonsezes running around my basement or hiding in
    my lunchbox, do you think I'd tell?? B^)

       I didn't mean to get anyone aroused, just by reading a few of
    the questions and response in this file set a curious thought in
    my mind; EX. when a couple of you mentioning about you are into
    playing with OUIGI boards etc., I might have gotten the wrong
    impression; if so, I'm sorry. I wanted to see where everyone was
    coming from in relateing with this file...
    
    
    LORENZO
    
    

    .11
    
    >If I had little demonsezes running around my basement or hiding
    in my lunchbox, do you think I'd tell??
    
    They're not always little. 
    
    Why wouldn't you tell?
    
    I.
    

    Most of those who have worked Ouja boards have been curious.  Some
    have recounted enough negative experiences (or at least cautionary
    tales) to make most of quite wary, and most of us also take to heart
    the excellent protection suggestions that the widely read contributors 
    to this file have passed to us.  The point is:  we are definitely
    interested in whether demons/devils exist or not, as part of the
    whole realm of the paranormal.  None of us are interested in harming
    ourselves or others, so I kind of doubt that we're interested in
    worshipping any evil entities.  
    
    What I'm interested in, as an example, is to expand my perceptions 
    and ability to use (for want of a better word) the subtle energies 
    I feel are a part of all human beings' innate talents _without_ 
    encouraging any harmful or evil manifestations, entities, demons,
    psychoses, call them what you will--I do not wish to harm either 
    myself or other people.  However, I do not believe the very hidebound
    religious views that any and all paranormal phenomena represent
    the presence of such evil.
    
    Marcia

      
    
      RE:14
     Too you; What are substle energies?
    
    L.
    

    Re .15:
    
    Lorenzo, now I'm concerned.  You asked in the base note if there
    were demon worshippers; you've been asked three or four times to
    define what constitutes a demon worsdhipper to you; and you've not
    responded.  Yet you ask .14 to define "subtle energies."  Why do
    you want definitions when you will not give any yourself?
    
    I'll save .14 the trouble on definitions:
    
    There are many energies postulated in the world which, for want
    of a better term, we might call life forces, such as can be found
    in growing plants.  Some people think the energy field called "the
    aura" is one such.  Some forms of energy can be tapped (as plants
    dop sunlight), amplified, or manipulated (as magnetism in an
    electromagnet can be).  None of this has diddly to do with demons.
    Additionally, some known energies, such as the earth's magnetic
    field and static electric potential exist around us.  Collectively,
    all of these can be subtle energies.
    
    A concern of mine:
    
    I noted in my first response that "Satan, I bind you, in Jesus Name!!"
    -- which is your personal nametag, sounds suspiciously like one
    of the quotes from a Medieval Grimoire.  "I ... conjure thee, [name
    of demon] by the Living God, by the blessed and omnipotent God:
    He who created the Heavens, the Earth, the Sea, and all things that
    are in them, from out of nothing," sounds just as pious, but comes
    from a grimoire that many occult scholars consider the epitome of
    black magic [black = evil].  Although the particular quote (and
    other even more pious ones) were written by a high official of the
    Christian Church in the Medieval period, the intent and uses this
    person wished to make of any demons he conjured would make me wish
    to avoid his spiritual counsel like the plague, since their intent
    is at sharp variance with Jesus' teachings.
    
    Tell me: _why_ this obsession with demons?  If you want to contact
    any, it's highly dangerous and foolish.  I would never suggest truck
    with demons, and would help drive away any that tried to approach
    me or anyone I know.  If contacting demons is what you wish, I'd
    suggest you might wish to talk it over with a truely dedicated
    clergyman, who ought to disabuse you of the idea.  I sincerely hope
    this is not your intent.
    
    There may, though, be a misunderstanding about what the DEJAVU
    Conference is all about.  If folk you've talked to don't understand
    our interests, well then, you may have a wrong perspective of what
    we do here.  In that case, i.e., i f this is a subtle way of trying to 
    accuse people here of being demon-worshippers, ytou're in the wrong
    conference.  
    
    If, however, you need help, I (and I assume others) will be glad to assist
    you with any problems off-line: please feel free to reach me by VAXmail.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                   

    re .15, .16:  (Lorenzo, Steve)
    
    Steve's definitions sound pretty good, except that I would like
    to add that most of these phenomenon probably have nothing to do
    with extra-worldly entities - I believe that most of them are natural
    phenomenon that are not yet understood.
    
    Elizabeth
    

RE: .16
    
    Steve, although your apparent suspicions may be right, I think you
    are being premature.  Lorenzo has shown no "obsession", he has asked
    a question of interest to him.  People have asked him to clarify
    his question, which he has so far failed to do.  We cannot thereby
    assume his motivations.
    
    His "personal name" hints that he comes from a religious background
    which views all sources of less-than-obvious power which are not
    clearly from the Church (the concept gets fuzzier with Protestant
    groups but the sentiment's essentially the same) as Satanic in nature.
    As your quote shows, this may actually be 180 degrees out of line,
    and he might actually be someone who seeks to "work" with demons.
    In any case, the hint may be misleading: he may have simply chosen
    what he considered a "cute" tag for posting to this conference.
    
    Even if he comes from such a background, we still do not know whether
    or not he is standing in condemnation or whether he is examining
    for himself those presuppositions or whether he is sure himself
    which he is doing.
    
    What it comes down to, Lorenzo, is that no one in this conference
    openly worships what they consider to be demons.  For us to be able
    to answer whether or not anyone does what *you* consider to be
    worshipping demons (e.g., attending Jewish services, perhaps) you will
    have to tell us just *what* you consider "worshipping demons" to include.
    For good reasons or bad you have triggered some hostility and
    suspicion, so for us to *want* to answer your question once it has been
    clarified, you will have to let us know what your reasons for wanting
    to know are.
    
    					Topher

    .16 and .17 have done a good job of defining what I have come to
    call the "subtle" energies.  
    
    What would one not interested in anything harmful want to do with 
    such energies?  Well, to help heal, for one thing.  
    
    My first direct, physical experience with said subtle energies 
    came at a polarity therapy massage class.  The teacher kept saying, 
    in the first lecture, things like "...when you feel the energy 
    release" and I asked her what it felt like.  She asked me to hold 
    that question until we'd started to practice.  As I was performing 
    the first exercise on a classmate (I was simply holding her head 
    in my hands, with thumb and fingers carefully placed in precise 
    spots, not rubbing or anything) she suddenly said "Hey, your hands 
    just got really hot!"  I felt a tingling in my fingertips, not 
    unlike when I touch something with a mild current running through 
    it--enough to notice, but not to shock me and make my hand bounce.
    The teacher, who happened by at that moment and heard my classmate's 
    comment asked me what I was feeling, and I described it.  She said 
    "that's it--that's the energy now flowing."  "Where's it coming
    from?" I asked.  "From you and the person you're working on," she
    replied.  "Your energy field, or aura, is interacting with hers
    and and stimulating energy flow in her field because you are touching
    specific reflex points to promote that flow on her body.  The idea
    is to balance that flow for the person you're working on."
    
    I was enchanted!  Enchanted that this experience was a tactile 
    thing, enchanted that it felt good to me and the person on whom 
    I was working, enchanted that it might, if I got good enough at 
    it, ease someone's pain, tension, dis-ease.  It was at that class 
    that I lost my own fear of the subtle energies.  I said to myself 
    "Self, there's something going on here, and I like it, and if I'm
    going to work with it, I should learn how to do it right--always."
    I approach the learning experience with the same caution that I 
    approached learning to drive.  Which means definitely no demons.
    
    Does that example help?
    
    Marcia

    RE.more on .0
    
    Lorenzo, 
    
    Since you've not yet supplied us with a definition, I've entered 
    the following definitions below from a summary dictionary.  Perhaps
    the best place to start would be for you to choose your meaning,
    and then perhaps we could all begin to understand and therefore
    more appropriately answer your original question.    
    
    Definition of 'demon' from the DEC-issued American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    demon - n. 1. A devil or evil being.  2. A persistently tormenting
               person, force, or passion.  3. One who is extremely
               zealous or skillful in a given activity.  
                                                             
    Just a personal observation, but it seems that if you were a regular
    reader and participant of this conference, you would already have
    the answer to your question (which would be 'no').  Perhaps it would
    be a good idea if you did a SET SEEN to a date one week or 2 weeks
    before today and actually read what it is we are all actively 
    discussing here.                                                            
    
    Since you mention that you were reading the sorts of topics (Ouija
    boards and the like) which you may have been taught were only used
    by supposed 'demon worshippers' (and I'm just making an assumption
    here), that the old saying "Ignorance is Bliss" is not true.  
    
    Indeed, if one is to get over a fear (or misconception) of something,
    it is much to everyone's benefit if one actually does some research
    on the topic.  For example - I have a friend who used to live in
    South Africa.  I don't know much about the situation there, so I'm
    digging out all my old National Geographics and spending a small
    fortune at my favorite bookstore to study that which I don't know.
    This doesn't mean that I support 'apartheid' just because I'm trying
    to find out more about it.  By the same token, I certainly couldn't
    outright condemn the government there not knowing any more than
    what I've seen on the 7:00 PM news every night (which is EXTREMELY
    brief and frequently biased or incomplete in the presentation of
    the situations).  My friend can condemn the govt. there though,
    because he lived there and has firsthand knowledge of the situation.
    After much reading and study, I may also come to the same conclusion,
    but it will only be after much deliberation and many many months
    of study, because only then will I be able to adequately defend my 
    opinion (but not to the death, should I receive new information
    which will make me change my opinion in the future).  Open minds 
    receive more than closed minds.
    
    So, what does that have to do with the conversations here?  Just
    that we are informing each other of our past experiences, which
    is a superb way to learn.  And, as you will notice in the Ouija
    topic, most of the experiences have been bad, and you can bet that
    based on these testimonies alone that I'll never get within 10 feet 
    of a Ouiga board ever again, or at least I will more fully understand
    that it is NOT a game and will be able to inform others of this fact.  
    Had I not read those firsthand experiences, I might have experimented 
    with a board on my own without knowing what it was I was dealing
    with.  In that case, my LACK of knowledge might have been very
    dangerous to me and to others as well.  
    
    To not discuss a subject because you believe it is taboo or frightening
    is ignorant.  It's right up there with parents who don't talk their 
    children about the facts of life or drugs, thinking that if they
    don't talk about them then these sorts of things will NEVER happen 
    to THEIR children.   Then these same parents just can't understand why
    their kids end up being addicts, bear children of their own or even
    worse.  (But we NEVER brought that topic up at home.....)
    
    I hope this helps to clarify my initial reaction back in .6 or so
    - that I believed (and still believe) your question to be very 
    strange and out of place in this conference.  To me, it seems that
    you made an assumption based on very little information.  Perhaps
    you would benefit from doing more research on the topic before you
    pose questions like .0 in the future (or at least rephrase the
    question so that the other participants in this conference might 
    understand what it is you were attempting to ask).
                                               
    Cindy     

    On demons:
    
    There was once a story, concerning a time nearly half a century
    ago, when the wife of a Christian missionary saw their general factotum
    [servant, houseboy] "clean" the dinner dishes by merely wiping them
    off and placing them back in the cabinet.  She was naturally horrified,
    but when she told him not to do that, and to wash them thoroughly
    before putting them away, he asked why, since they looked clean
    enough.  The missionary's wife was perplexed for a moment, since
    she was certain that the native didn't know a thing about germs,
    so she tried to explain why in this fashion: "There are creatures
    we can't see," she began, "that get onto those plates.  If they
    aren't cleaned, these creatures can get inside us and make us ill."
    
    A great light of understabnding crossed the servant's features.
    "I see," he said.  Then, after a moment, he added, doubtfully,
    "But we _Christians_ don't believe in such things, do we?" 
    
    Okay, the analogy:
    
    Some people study channeling, psi, various forms of divination,
    and the like, just to increase their store of knowledge; others
    do it to help people.  A doctor studies diseases, not to be morbid;
    rather, so he knows what to do to prevent or fight an infection.
    I suspect anyone with an interest in demons who's in this file would
    study them analogously to the doctor studying diseases.  I don't
    know of too many in this file who are even part-time demonologists,
    though.
    
    There are famtrad witches (not the Satanic kind; most are Christian)
    who have an ability to heal animals and people.  Thery have effected
    cures, in some cases, where more traditional attempts at cures just
    didn't work.  Nonwithstanding that what they did was "occult," it
    certainly was both in the Christian tradition of helping one's neighbor
    selflessly, and as positive (good) acts.  Yet there are those who
    might even label such gentle folk as "demon worshippers."
    
    One must be careful of labels; the map is not the territory.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    LORENZO-
      
         I strongly suggest you go out asap and rent the movie
    "Resurrection"  starring Ellyn Bursten (sp.?)  In many ways
    that movie talks to what we are all talking to here.  If 
    you watch the movie, you will notice that Ellyn's character
    develops an ability to heal...and doesn't know where that ability
    comes from.  Folks around her (Bible-toters, for the most part)
    assume that this ability must come from "God".  She denies it.
    So, then, in their minds, the ONLY OTHER possibility is that the
    power comes from the "devil."  She denies that, too.  Eventually,
    she goes into a seclusion, just to avoid the confrontation.
        Most of us in this conference would sympathize with Ellyn's
    character.  From where we sit, we see you as sympathizing with
    the "Bible-toters."  Would you rather see us go underground?
    If so, then you would be in direct confrontation with the founders
    of this country, most of whom were heavily "God-fearing."  What's
    the answer?  As some of the last few responses would indicate, 
    spend a little time researching if you are truly interested in
    answers...don't be afraid that you will get sucked into anything
    that can hurt you...try to be as open minded as possible...clutch
    your Bible if you need to and know that "God" will not abandon
    you just for being interested in the "other."  In fact, try to see
    where "God" is working here, too, although obviously in ways in
    which you've not become familiar until now.  Though there may be
    some in here who do not acknowledge "God," I suspect that most of
    us do...try to understand that "God" does not punish those who
    are ignorant; only man does that kind of punishing.  Try, then,
    to be "God (or Christ)-like" and show more understanding and less
    presumption.  We will do the same, I'm sure.
      
    Frederick
    

    Reply to .13; Pulkstenis,
    
    Because I don't think demons exist. Perhaps what does exist are energy
    beings of very limited intelligence. Forcably plugging these entities
    into a religious (demonic?) framework is at best self-defeating and
    provides no continuing understanding of such entities. These are just
    other (common) forms of life, not well understood, and blacklisted much
    like the leach, which is today being rediscovered. 
    
    Reply to .0,
    
    Lorenzo, you sly dog, are you playing the part of a _sheep_ in wolves
    clothing??  B^) 
                                                               

    No demon worshippers in the Pare household I'm happy to report.
                     
    	(I make it a point not to worship any entity that doesn't have
         a modicum of fondness for me .... existence is a two-way street
         you know_:-)

    Re .25, earlier:
    
    Let's clear up one thing -- by making a definition or two:
    
    Devil: a fallen angel 
    Demon: a malovelent supernatural being that in some cases msy
           be a devil, but need not be restricted so.
    Spirit: A discarnate supernatural entity, or such an entity in
            a body, but considered separately.  Spirits can be good,
            evil, or neutral.
    Shade:  Spirit of one who has died.
    Ghost:  Same as shade.          
    Elemental: A supernatural being neither good nor bad associated
               with one of the traditional mystic elements.
    
    A succubus or incubus, for instance, might be called "demon" without
    being thought of as a "devil." 
    
    Hope this clarifies our discussions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    .27
    
    Steve, your definitions may be helpful in this on-going
    discussion. I would like to know the source of your definitions.
    It makes a difference, I think, on who you consider the
    authority. Acceptance of a certain set of definitions would
    tend to determine the direction this discussion takes.
    
    I don't necessarily agree with all your definitions, though
    to you they may be meaningful.
    
    Irena
    
    
    
    

    Re: .27
    
    Thanks, Steve.  I never knew how devils differed from demons, or
    even if they did.
    
    Marcia

    Re .28:
    
    My authorities are an amalgum of many works, and are not meant
    to be cast in bronze.  For instance, the writings of Agrippa and
    Paracelsus honed some of the definition of "demon."  (The ancient
    Greek, "daemon," where the word "demon" comes from, has a different
    and somewhat less sinister meaning, for instance.)  I have deliberately
    avoided such items as sprites, poltergeisten, and other supernatural
    entities to focus some of the discussion.
    
    From the base note through .12, there was _no_ definition given,
    and the dictionary definition of "demon" is a little too general
    for a conference such as this one.
    
    Definitional problems frequently make truthseeking more difficult.
    My entry was to help try to avoid this.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.       

    
    A good source of information on this matters (demons) may be find
    in the book "The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft an Demonology" (sorry,
    I don't remember the author and don't have the book with me at this
    moment). In that book there are not only definitions, but long
    treatises on witchcraft, demonology, lycantrophy, vampirism etc.
    etc.. Also there is another book "Pactum", which treats Demons in
    most of its facets.
    
    Just for the record, the definitions given by .27 are in complete
    accord with the definitions on this and several other books on this
    matters...
    
    
    - JSR -
    

    To All,
    
       I haven't forgotten you all, the Digital here in SYO is moveing
    from the 1st floor to the 2nd, so after this move I will be back
    to answer your question.
    
    LORENZO
    

    re .27:
    
    >My concept of a demon is more like your concept of an elemental, Steve,
    > ...
    
    Well, not exactly _my_ concept; it's a fairly established definition
    among occultists.  If you use the term in the ancient Greek "daemon"
    sense, though, it's closer to your concept.  Actually, elementals
    are supposed to be manifestations_of/dwellers_in certain primal
    forces; for purposes of discussion, a conscious entity not necessarily
    good or evil that can turn its energy against you if you're not
    very careful can fall into the general class, "para-elemental."
    That's not precise (usually such critters are given a variety of
    more specialized, functional names), but it's a good umbrella
    classification.
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
     To All:
      
       Now that you all searched, and found out what deamons are; do
    you think that it is possible to become posessed with one UNAWARE?
    
    If your answer is no; then, how do you know? :-)
    
    LORENZO
    

    
    To LORENZO:
    
    I'm still waiting to read what YOUR definition of a 'demon' is.
    
    I also find it very interesting that you are quite willing to put
    questions in here while it seems you are quite unwilling to reveal
    anything about yourself or your beliefs (or your own definitions).
                                                                
    Until/unless you decide to take a more active role in this 
    discussion, I, for one, am not going to continue participating in 
    this topic.
         
    Cindy  

    re: .36 Cindy
    
    He's just asking for opinions. Maybe he's taking a poll for
    a book he's writing. Who knows? What's the harm in sharing
    what you think on this topic? 
    
    I think, if you re-read .35, that what he is asking has very
    little to do with *his* definition of a demon...There have
    been several definitions given, some from knowledgeable
    sources.  
    
    I believe that the question relates to *you* (Dejavu noters) and
    whatever definition *you* subscribe to. Obviously, if you
    don't believe demons exist, you can't be expected to answer
    the question.
    
    I think what Lorenzo is asking us is this: Whatever you
    conceive "demons" to be, do you think it is possible (not
    probable) but *possible* to be possessed, invaded, or controlled
    by them, without our knowledge that this is so?  
                              
    
    I don't think we need to hear his opinion first to give our thoughts 
    on the question, unless we're not sure of our own opinions.
    
    I'll be the first to answer, for I know where I stand on the 
    subject. I *know* they exist. And my answer to that question
    is "yes, it's possible". 
                 
    Now, let's hear others on this. I'm interested in this topic.
    
    Irena
    
    
    
    
    Forgive me for trying to clarify, Lorenzo. If I am wrong, please
    correct me.

    Re .35:
    
    Lorenzo, I for one agree with Cindy.  Taken in aggregate, your
    questions seem to me to be confrontational.  First, you ask whether
    there are any demon worshippers in the conference, adding, "be honest,"
    which if someone appended that to a question asked to _you_, you
    would probably not take kindly to.  Then, after telling us to "take
    it easy," presumably about your base question, you ask us in your
    following (3rd) communication to define subtle energies.  When it
    becomes clear that nobody here thinks demon worship is anything
    other than crazy, you're asking us whether we could get unknowingly
    possessed.
    
    two points:
    
    1)  this has gone from "worship" to "possession."  Not the same
    thing at all.  I'll add that possession usually requires the active
    cooperation of the person being possessed (though not always); this
    means that the  person would be aware of being possessed.  The case
    of unwanted possession is analogous to someone highjacking an airplane:
    it's most likely to occur when people are off-guard.  Someone familiar
    with the occult is more likely to be on guard than someone who isn't.
    I can counter, how do _you_ know you haven't been possessed unaware?
    
    2) you have steadfastly refrained from giving your opinion of what
    constitutes "deamons."  Since you've started by asking us to "be
    honest," I'm asking thge same of you.  Why won't you respond to
    our questions?  Particularly when you expect us to respond to yours.
    
    An overall comment: either you're playing games (not what this
    conference -- or any serious conference -- is about, or you have
    a  preconception -- no, better, a prejudice about the activities
    mentioned in this conference.  Let's assume the letter:  suppose
    I went to the BAGELS file and started asking subtly antiSemetic
    questions, what do you suppose my actions  would be viewed as? 
    Suppose, however, you're playing a game.  Then you're wasting valuable
    disk space that could be used by the regular participants to discuss
    serious issues.  How would a member of the FLYING conference feel,
    do you suppose, if someone started asking questions like, "An airplane
    weighs thousands of pounds.  How can you possibly believe it can
    stay in the air?"  The effort to answer that question wouldn't be
    worth the time.
    
    If this discussion is to continue constructively, then you'll have
    to be as open to us as we have been to you.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    *I* happen to worship several DAEMONS: print_, nm_, etc.
    
    Perry/Tananda
    

    Yo, moderators!!
    
    Lorenzo's personal name is fairly provocative don't you think? 
    
    Can I change my personal name to say,
    
                       "HAIL ERIS, ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!"
    Or how about,
                  "WORSHIP PAN AND PUT FUR IN YOUR BRITCHES"
    Try maybe,
    
                "WORSHIP RA AND PUT THE SUNSHINE IN YOUR DAY"
    Or even,
                    "LOVE BACCHUS AND BE PART OF THE VINE"
                                   
    Lorenzo, the problem I have with you is one presented by fundamental
    Christians to Neo-Pagans today. 
    
    A couple years ago a group of Neo-Pagans were asked to be filmed and
    interviewed by impartial observers. This group decided that it was ok
    so the festivities were filmed and interviews were made. Much to the
    horror of the group the film was given to a fundamental Christian group
    who butchered the context and portrayed the Neo-Pagans as devil and
    demon worshipers. This film still circulates today. 
    
    My general concern, as others, is that anything we may share with you
    may be turned against us on some holy crusade to rid Digital of the
    "Devil worshipers". 
    
    Just because I'm paranoid dosen't mean the Paranoids aren't out to get
    me. B^)
    
    You know, I have done the same thing you are doing now when I was a
    Christian. Although I didn't debate any Witches or Pagans I did
    confront Mormons, J.W.s and others I thought who were either bound for
    hell or in error.  We share the spirit of the adventurer Lorenzo.
    One problem with the adventurers spirit is that it frequently and
    easily gets bored. Please don't get bored toooooooo easily. B^)
    
    On one side of the dicotomy we have suspisions and concerns, on
    the other side we have a battle of wills. Maybe battle is to strong
    a word but it describes what I sense fairly well. It is interesting
    to know that the practice of Majik is also much the same. It is
    a battle of will against doubt and fear.
    
    So please, jump right into the discussions and support your views
    but don't expect anyone to foldup and become fearful just because
    you indirectly associate them with Satan via your personal name. 
    
    

    As a newcomer to this file, I've been following this discussion
    with some interest, and would like to offer some personal
    impressions, if I may:
    
    I am surprised and a bit disappointed by the responses. I
    can understand, but don't like the emanating energies I perceive
    are being released by most (not all) the noters responding. 
    I sense  fear, anger, resentment, distrust, antagonism, yes,
    even some intolerance and ridicule.  The kinds of things that
    lead to battles and, multiplied, lead to wars.
    
    Why are people allowing (and participating in) the feeding
    of these negative influences? Can't people feel how these forces
    grip them and begin to control them? 
    
    "Enlightenment" from people who explore other dimensions and planes 
    seems to have dimmed. Where is the open-mindedness, the searching,
    the curiosity, the desire to explore, discuss, share, experience
    and help others, that I thought are common denominators?
    
    There is an overwhelming lack of utilization of the positive forces
    that abound. I am wondering why. Love and trust can only come from
    a positive self-image.   
                           
    Have we slipped back into "pre-enlightenment" just because we
    may have come up against an evangelical Christian?  Why is it
    that this produces such a darkness and narrowing of mind, and such
    a "closing of the ranks"? 
    
    Please look at this objectively, if you can. Then, muster all
    the peaceful, loving, positive, *con*structive forces you have 
    access to and use them as the tools they were designed to be.
    
    Discard the rest, for they are *des*tructive not only to others
    but, mostly, to oneself. You guys all know that!
                   
    If we are not building bridges, we are tearing them down. These
    times can't can't afford that.
                           
    All this at a time of the great "harmonic convergence". It seems
    paradoxical. As if dejavu noters don't really practice what they
    preach.
                                                    
    Forgive me if I've offended anyone. Can't help what I sense, and feel.
    (My question on walking in the light, new topic, was prompted by
    the uneasiness I felt that something wasn't quite right here).
    
    Am I expecting too much?
    
    Take care, and may the Ch'i be with you.
    

Reply to 443.41, Pulkstenis,

    (This is one of my favorite subjects... the character assassination of
    Darkness in Dual/Theistic thought.) 

    Perhaps what you have sensed is true. But perhaps negative energies are
    a part of our lives also.  This is a world that serves our purposes
    well, but it is not a peaceful world. Viewing this world through rosy
    tinted glasses will tint a personal reality but does little to effect
    consensus reality. 

    I'm glad this situation has come up because it gives us the opportunity
    to express negative energies in a controlled environment with ample
    space for personal feedback without animosity. 

    Perhaps you are confusing issues here. Walking in the light is a truly
    wonderful thing. Still there are times in which it is not possible to
    walk in the light. These are the times we have to walk in the dark, yet
    walking in peace. 

    Always thinking we are walking in the light leaves us open to traumatic
    failures when really walking in the dark. Your own personal experience
    will tell you when you are walking in the dark but you will have
    experience the dark to understand how to cope with it. 

    I will probably raise some hackles here but I will say it anyway. The
    dark can be coped with and used to peaceful ends if used correctly.
    This is the lesson presented in the yin/yang, sun/moon, day/night,
    male/female and good/bad. In plant life we see plants soaking up light
    by day but growing by night. All things have to deal with the dark
    side, it's just how they deal with it that matters. 

    In Discordian thought it is called "Putting Murphy to Work for You."
    Our planet is but a small speck in a universe of chaos. Metaphorically
    speaking, on all levels chaos is brought into order by light. At times
    chaos bursts through into order and has to be dealt with. Without
    experiencing the dark (chaos) we can't learn to experience it
    peacefully. Thus, always walking in the light is not possible. Eris
    (the principle of chaos) won't allow that. It spoils her show. B^) 
 
    I submit that your statement concerning slipping back into darkness
    because of the presence of a different entity in this file is a little
    out of focus. Every contraction is a consolidation of power. Self
    defense is not wrong. It is very, very wise. And I guarantee you that
    the misguided mundane activity of whispering campaigns, bad press and
    character assassination is much, much more effective than any spiritual
    activities to counter any group or groups activities. Please note that
    I am not saying that this person would do those mundane things. I'm
    saying that it is possible and that other people have sensed the
    danger. Learn to read the signs on the trail and you'll know which way
    to go. 
                                                                      
    Perhaps some of our easternly oriented friends would point out that
    light and darkness are maya. 

    The bridges are still there. No one has burnt them. Notice that a
    bridge is a two way track. I've seen only one track of this bridge
    used. 

    Peace. 

    Re .41:
    
    >I am surprised and a bit disappointed by the responses. I
    >can understand, but don't like the emanating energies I perceive
    >are being released by most (not all) the noters responding. 
    >I sense  fear, anger, resentment, distrust, antagonism, yes,
    >even some intolerance and ridicule.  The kinds of things that
    >lead to battles and, multiplied, lead to wars.
     
    I had a long reply top this, which a system failure lost.  I shall
    try again, being more abbreviated.
    
    In his questions, Lorenzo first got a few simple, trying-to-be-helpful
    responses, despite the confrontational question of his base note.
    [Suppose this were the Roman Catholic conference and someone had
    asked, "Has anybody here had sex with members of the clergy?  If
    so, please tell us of your experience, be honest."  How would you
    feel as a member of the conference?]  Having that said, some Conference
    regulars, me included, asked, legitimately, how Lorenzo defined
    "demons'; he didn't [to this day] deign to answer.
    
    His latest question could be taken as an argument that might go
    as follows:  "The people who are in the DEJAVU conference are leaving
    themselves open to demonic possession which some of their members
    admit can take place without thewir knowledge.  That's what they
    get for messing with forbidden things and the fils should be closed
    to discourage such activities."  Unlikely?  Yes.  Far-fetched? No.
    SEXCETERA [which I never participated in, and wouldn't have] was
    closed because of an incident; someone who wished to close this
    file could equally manufacture an incident.  Is Lorenzo trying to
    do this?  I don't know, and ==>can't<=== know unless Lorenzo starts
    being as open with us as we were with him.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I am mostly read-only here. I'm new to these subjects, and like
    to "listen" and learn from those assembled. All I know about "demons"
    is what I've read in this conference. (apologies to Will Rogers
    (?) or whomever :-))
    
    Still, I *have* introduced myself, and I feel very much a part of
    this conference. So, on that basis, I will say:
    
    This note gives me the semi-creepy feeling that we're a bunch of
    bugs under a microscope, and "Lorenzo" is a scientist, dropping
    stuff on us to see what we'll do. When our reaction peters out,
    he pokes us with something and watches again. All the while making
    no effort to commit himself to the subject, the conference, the
    people.
    
    I'd really like to know what's going on, here.
    
    Dawn
    

    If you are really interested in an answer, I refer you to reply
    82.13 in which I layed out my understanding of what happens during
    spiritual "possession".
    
    I will also point out that fundamentalist religious dogma, such
    as the Inquisition and burning of "witches" at the stake, and the
    current martyr-oriented Muslim extremism,  are in
    fact not tied to God under whose direction these people claim they act,
    but more often are inspired and/or encouraged by the negative forces;
    who are usually quite amused at how easily small-minded people are
    manipulated.
    
    I hope we will all continue to be friendly and encouraging to each
    other.  I'm still learning the etiquette in this conference.

      RE:ALL
      
    
       Before I write any further; I would like to introduce myself
    to you. My name is Lorenzo Jefferson; The reason I ask the question
    was not intentioned to make anyone unconfortable; I ask the question
    to get you to think, and search out what you were really into. I
    am not a "Fanatical Baptist" as you all probably heard; I am a member
    of the Living Water COGIC ( Church of God In Christ ), and I am
    a ferm believer in Christ. I noticed that there were a few of you
    that said that you were a part of the "Light"; If you are talking
    a bout the light of Christ, it is good to be extra careful, because
    if you are NOT grounded and rooted in Christ; it is VERY easy to
    be misleaded away from your belief. I know that you all have good
    intentions by reading your response, and I don't blame you all for
    becoming upset; because you had no ideal of who I am, and where
    I was coming from, SO I say again I'm sorry if I cause any un-at-ease
    feelings.
    
    In Christ
       LORENZO
    

    
     It seems that Lorenzo,for whatever reasons,chooses not to say much
    at this point.That is his choice.However,in at least one other
    conference he has participated openly and revealed himself publicly.
    Since he has done that, and for the sake of those who are interested
    in knowing more about him,you may visit the Christian conference
    and find out for yourself.
     I will say that even though i follow JESUS and his spirit,Those
    who hold to fundamental christian beliefs,would probably say that
    i am following SATAN and possibly be possessed by a demon.I know
    where Lorenzo is coming from,but,perhaps by him investigating this
    conference,he might learn from it.
     I welcome him and hope he would find it in his heart to be open
    and honest with us.we could learn from each other.
     Negative emotions tend to let us look at ourselves and we learn
    from that.It tells us something about US.GOD knew we would be inperfect
    and that each one of us would have an eternal journey to develop
    ourselves.He wants us to help each other on the way.
     
     PEACE
     MICHAEL
    
    

    If one believes in demons,... I think it would be possible to be
    possessed without knowing it.  I wonder sometimes if the insane
    know that they are insane.  I have always felt that the self-
    rightous, the power-hungry, the intolerant, many of those people
    who truly believed that they were on a mission from God to distroy
    (whatever) certain peoples, beliefs, ideology...were in actuality
    possessed by an evil entity that had somehow blinded them to any
    empathy, sensitivity, or any feelings of love or care about their
    fellow men.  When I examine the values and priorities of some religious
    military, and political leaders, I am convinced that there is a
    self-perpetuating evil force that deeply ingrains itself in some
    people to inspire them to acts of evil in the name of God.

    Re .48:
    
    And, to clarify what I said earlier, I suspect that possession requires
    at least a modicum of cooperation on the part of the person being
    possessed.  If one believes in demons, one must welcome (or at least
    acquiesce) in the demon taking up residence in one's body (although
    the practitioners of Macumba think that _spirit_ possession can
    take place spontaneously/unwillingly, they also believe that such
    an entity cannot take up permanent residence in a person's body;
    the great spirits [like the Voudoun loa] require active work to
    help make the spirits descend as "riders" to the possessed as "horses";
    these almost invariable require a sacrifice of some sort, usually
    a chicken).  Either way means _being aware_ of being possessed (or
    obsessed, for that matter.
    
    In short, I don't think it can happen without the possessed knowing
    it.  Once possessed, however, there may be little he or she can
    do about it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    That makes sense Steve.  Maybe all of those religious, military
    and political leaders who seem to serve the dark have in fact sold
    out willingly and, while knowing they are possessed,... are beyond
    caring.

    	Well, I believe posession is possible.   But, interest in the
    occult, or activity in non-Christian religions does *not* cause
    posession.    That is just a thin disguise for religious bigotry.
    Posession is apparently quite rare, when compared to the number
    of accusations of posession.   It is very easy to allege that
    so and so is posessed, or that such and such an activity causes
    posession.   Such claims have been used for religous coercion
    throughout history.
    
    	I believe Lorenzo is *not* being up front with us.   I heard
    he has send mail to some of the people in this topic, that more
    clearly shows his bias.   This, I believe accounts for the change
    in emotional tone we have seen in this topic.
        If any of you recieve such notes from him, please include them 
    here, so we can all get a more accurate picture of the *entire*
    scope of the conversation on this topic.
    
	ALAN.

	As mentioned before in some replies of this conference, it is 
extremly unlikely that a "demon" can take possesion of anyone without 
his co-operation. However, there are those instances in where it may 
look like that is the case, but a closer look reveals otherwise.
	A demon, like any other discarnated entity is bound to obey 
the rules governing their plane of existence. They have a limited 
radius of action established by the own nature of their plane of 
existence; but this radius can be expanded with the cooperation of a 
willing individual. 
	Examples of this kind of cooperation (with spirits in general)
can be found in the spiritists' seances': when an individual (medium)
"lends" his body so that the spirit can manifest himself thru it and 
also to materialise using the mediums' ectoplasm (a kind of 
bio-energy), when a sorcerer invokes, sumons "X" forces from the 
spiritual world for "Y" purposes his is cooperating, because is thru
his own "power" that they are more or less able to manifest; and this 
cooperation also happens when the individuals' psichyc state is 
perturbed by external forces such as those generated during certain 
religious ceremonies (both pagan and christian).
	As described in re.49, the Afro-antillian religion of Macun 
practised mainly in the lesser Antilles, (with the nomination 
for spirits being "Macum-BA or Macunba") has a characteristic way of 
enableing the possesion of a persons' body by a spirit.___ (Incidently, 
"Loa" is the word used by Vodoo practitioners__mostly in Haiti__
for spirits in general, but specially for those belonging to the 
"water"; as for the sacrificial ceremonies they are performed most of 
the times as part of the rituals and not for the purpose of expelling 
an unwanted entity; and the sacrificed animal depends on the ritual 
and ceremony performed and of course, of the Saint(s) involved in 
such.)
	But even in this non-traditional religious way, the rules 
governing possesions are the same: A degree of cooperation is needed.


			***********************


	




	I had witnessed several cases, in and out of any religious-type 
ceremony, of what was called at the time "Possesions". The inmense 
majority of them were just cases of hysteria atacks caused by deeply 
represed patterns of thinking and behavior and/or by obssesions, also 
by traumatic experiences deeply hidden and then firmly rooted in the 
psiche of the possesed, lying there, deep; just waiting for something 
to trigger their exit, and then thru a catarsis, to manifest.
	However, there were those few, who didn't respond to any of 
the above mentioned causes. Hair raising experiences I must say, and 
quite difficult to manage...



- JSR -

	 

    Re .52:
    
> ...   when a sorcerer invokes, sumons "X" forces from the 
>spiritual world for "Y" purposes his is cooperating, because is thru
>his own "power" that they are more or less able to manifest ...
    
    Small nit:  many ceremonial magicians aren't "cooperating" in the
    sense of making themselves available for possession; indeed, the
    very protective circles they inscribe are to prevent just that.
    
    However, particularly those who lean towards what is generally called
    the "dark side" of such rituals, the mind-set that summoning such
    beiings requires makes such practitioners more susceptable to later
    possessions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    Re.53
    
 >       Small nit:  many ceremonial magicians aren't "cooperating" in the
 >       sense of making themselves available for possession; indeed, the
 >       very protective circles they inscribe are to prevent just that.  
      
    
    Agreed. But the fact remains that cooperation is needed for any
    operation of this nature to succeed. BTW, ceremonial magicians (as
    well as trascendental magicians) are not the same thing as sorcerers.
    The later inclines more towards the darker sides of nature and this
    is reflected in the ultimate purpose of his operations.
    
    
    - JSR -
    
    

    
    RE:50
    
      *I* personally, wouldn't state that person as being posessed;
    I would say that, that person is all out for greed; and one who
    would be considered to having a reprobated mind. Now there are some
    religious leaders who are being used by satin (angels of light),
    and don't even know it; as far as they know they are doing right,
    and in some cases are willing to go to the extreme of hurting someone,
    but I still won't call that posession: I would say that, that is
    caused by lack of understanding. "Forever Learning, and Never able
    to come unto the knowledge of Truth". I would also like to mention
    to all the readers, that, my personel name had, or has nothing to
    do with anyone in this file or this topic. I wrote it as to say
    that, by having that spirit that I have ( which IS the spirit of
    Christ), and being a child of God, Satan has no dominion over me:
    THAT is personal too me!! Also I would like to mention that, the
    only thing I ment by "Are there any Demons in the house", was, are
    ther anyone in THIS note file, that are practicing, or studying
    anything that has to do with the darkside; EX: getting in touch
    with differant spirits, or studing any kind of witchcraft, or better
    yet, takeing any part of any kind of ceremonies. what I ment by
    worship was, someone that is devoted to what they are doing; mind
    you that there are people that do it as an interest, not meaning
    any harm to anyone or themselves!! I didn't ask to find out if any
    of you are "Posessed". The note that Elizabeth sent you is WRONG,
    I did not try to twist her words around, and the reason I told her
    about the bible was because, SHE was telling me why SHE did not
    believe in God. SHE told me to read from the book of Exodus- the
    book of Chronicles; SHE couldn't understand why a "Loving God" would
    kill little children, and turn a woman into a piller of salt. I
    explain to her that the woman was turned into salt because of
    disobedience; I told her that when the city of S,gomarra was destroyed,
    God told them to run and DON'T look back, the woman looked back
    and changed into a piller of salt; Elizabeth said that no one had
    ever explained it to her, SHE did not have to force her way off
    the phone!! ( I read the memo!!). Also I would like to mention that
    I am not a FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN!!! The reason I did't say much
    this week was because, our company moved, and I had to get situated
    in my new area, Before then, I was watching the response from you!
    
    LOVE IN CHRIST 
      LORENZO
    

    It might be well to remember (if I have this right...Steve?) that
    "Satan" is a Christian idea. Wasn't around before Christianity came
    up with it.
    
    Dawn
    

    RE:56
    
      If you recall, that, Satan was God's most precious angel; what
    happened was, Satan had gotten up-lifted, over exalted and he thought
    that he was better than God; so God kicked him out of heaven along
    with 2/3 of heavens angels. So Satan was here along time before
    us..
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re .56
    
    No, the figure of Satan existed in Judaism before the appearance
    of Christianity.  For example, Satan appears in the book of Job.
    Christian tradition and/or doctrine may have modified the figure,
    but it was already there to be modified.  And the modifications
    may not have been so great.  I'm fairly certain that, by the first
    century AD, Satan was already conceived as the chief of the rebel
    angels.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    This gets rather complicated.  There is a mixing of folk belief
    and religion going on.  As I understand it, traditionally in Judeism
    there was a *folk* belief in demons.  It was not officially part
    of the religion but the belief has influenced many religious rituals
    and customs.  Probably the most influential single demon is/was
    Lilith, the first wife of Adam (you will note that in genesis, when
    Adam is created he is created *with* a female counterpart, but Eve
    his "accepted" wife was created later).  Lilith, displaced for her
    evil, is still jealous of the children of Eve, and much custom revolves
    around protecting the home, particularly children from Lilith. 
    For example, a childs name is not spoken aloud during the first
    days of life while it is still most vulnerable.
    
    The Snake in Eden, originally seems to have been just a snake, ordinary
    for its pre-fall time.  Later it picked up demonic conotations,
    but in no sense was it The Devil, i.e., God's Chief Opponent.
    
    As I understand it (this was told to me by a Rabi), the ancient
    Hebraic system of justice combined the roles of judge and defense
    lawyer in one role.  That is, the judge started by assuming the
    innocence of the accused and had to be officially convinced of his
    guilt.  This was done by the Opponent (in anglasized Hebrew, Satan);
    what we would call the prosecuting attorney.  This is what is being
    played out in the story of Job.
    
    Somewhere in the few centuries Before the Common Era, the belief
    in fallen members of Gods servants grew up.  There is mention in
    some of the late Jewish Appocrapha (religious works not accepted
    as canon) of versions of this.  Versions of this were common throughout
    the Mediteranean (note the myths of Prometheus and of Vulcan) so
    during this period of intense incorporation it is not surprising
    that it was picked up.
    
    Christian association of the chief of the fallen with the Satan
    of Job and the Serpent of Eden seems to have been quite an early
    Christian innovation.  Only the bare outlines existed then, however.
    The Demonic host was, however, a convenient place to consign local
    deities and evil spirits, when it was not politically expediant
    to make them Saints or aspects of the trinity.  The story grew in
    scope and detail until the late middle ages.
    
    Much of our modern version was actually invented by Milton for purely
    literary purposes.
    
    				Topher

    
    Re.55,.57
    
    Lorenzo,  
    
    Thank you for your entries.  I look forward to some very interesting
    '2-way' discussions in this topic, with full participation from both
    sides.
    
    The most important thing is to attempt to see the world through
    someone elses eyes and then only will one begin to understand the
    reasons behind the beliefs and statements....and only then will
    we begin the process of entering into a community situation where
    it is OK to be different - and still get along - and respect every
    other member of the community for themselves instead of trying to
    change them to be 'like you' or 'the norm'.....whatever that might 
    be.
    
    Cindy

    Re .58:
    
    Beat me to it, Earl! :-)
    
    Re .56, .58:
    
    The relationship between God [the Father], Jesus, and Satan is also
    interesting.  Note in the Book of Job that there is no conflict
    betwen God and Satan; they are discussing Job almost academically.
     Note that in the gospels, Jesus it taken to the wilderness and
    tempted by Satan; He says, "Get thee behind me, Satan."  He could
    have said something much harsher such as "Get thee to the deepest, 
    darkest, and hottest [or coldest, with a nod to Dante] pit of Hell."
    That is, Satan is not attacked, but is spoken to.  This is
    not to equate Satan with God or Jesus; rather, it's to show that
    the interrelationships between them is complex.
    
    From a human standpoint, though, the choices are much clearer, since
    [in a Christian context] Jesus' messages are quite antithetical to
    the basic message of Satan and are of love rather than of hate.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                  

    re: .56
    
    Satan was/is Lucifer, (meaning "light"). He was the Chief Musician.
    And he wanted to be like the Most High. Desire for power was his
    downfall and he would like to take as many with him as he can through
    his promise to share what supernatural powers he has. And he is
    mighty powerful, but not all-powerful (God is all-powerful) Also, 
    he can't be in all places at once (thank God!)  
    
    There some noters who could offer all the names that Satan goes by.
    A few come to mind immediately: He is known as a liar, deceiver,
    the author of confusion. He has many demons in his army.
                                                
      
    "Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis is good, light reading if you want to
    know how he works. Billy Graham's book on Angels is recommended
    reading, if you want to know about these spiritual beings and
    how they work.                                   
    
    In summary, there is a spirit realm. It is neither all bad nor all
    good. It is definitely not neutral!
    
    "Wrapping yourself in the white light" will do nothing to protect
    you unless you are tuned into the Almighty Source of that light. 
    And then, because of good reason, He doesn't want you to mess with
    that realm. God said it and I believe it. I wonder how many people
    "use" the white light of Jesus without believing in Jesus!
    
    The Heavenly Father (if you'll allow me to call Him that) sets down
    rules and boundaries for us for our own welfare, just as we set
    down boundaries for our children. When we venture outside of those
    boundaries, we cannot always be sure that His protection (as we
    understand it) will follow us.
    
    Therein lies the danger of disobedience (if you take God to be
    the supreme authority). If you don't believe in God, then of course
    you're on your own and Heaven help you! [pun intended :-)]
    
    Yes, Satan is alive and well on planet earth. We just don't recognize
    the many forms he takes.
    
    Irena
                                                              
    

    Re .55:
    
    Lorenzo, just a point.  
    
    >              ...         Also I would like to mention that, the
    >only thing I ment by "Are there any Demons in the house", was, are
    >ther anyone in THIS note file, that are practicing, or studying
    >anything that has to do with the darkside; EX: getting in touch
    >with differant spirits, or studing any kind of witchcraft, or better
    >yet, takeing any part of any kind of ceremonies.
    
    Your definition is too broad and vague.  Two years ago, I took part
    in one kind of ceremony; I got married.  People who go to church
    often take part in ceremonies in their churches.  By your definition,
    all of these are automatically demon worshippers, working on the
    darkside.  
    
    I commend to your attention Note #103, "What is a Witch?"; this
    explains some of the differentiations of what constitutes witchcraft.
    The Wiccan (nonSatanic) creed includes "with harm towards none';
    this is hardly an evil thought.  Now, you might have religious
    differences with them; however,, you might equally have religious
    differences with Hindus; would you call a member of an Oriental
    religion a demon worshipper?   From your perspective, you might
    call them "unenlightened," but I doubt you'd accuse them of worshipping
    demons; you might recall that Wicca is just another such religion
    (as is Druidism).
    
    Christian theologians of the Medieval period understood the stricture
    in the book of Exodus, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,"
    _not_ to mean that witches should be executed (as they were during
    the various witch hysterias) but that they should be denied the
    ceremony of Communion since they were unable, by their beliefs,
    to partake in the eternal life promised by Our Savior.
    
    Now there is a whole subgrouping of ceremonial magic called Enochian
    Magic, where the magician in question hoolds ceremonies to contact
    and work with angels of the non-fallen variety (no, I'm not an
    Enochian, but I'll try to make a point by using this).  Is someone
    trying to evoke an angel of God a "demon worshipper"?  I rather
    doubt it.
    
    As I've observed elsewhere, there are many paranormal activities
    that appear to be condoned in the Bible, including futuretelling,
    astrology, and certain forms of magic (especially as practiced by
    Moses).  I think the problem here is that a certain lack of
    understanding may lead you to the wrong impression of some of the
    activities of members of this Conference.
    
    [A sort of example:  A person gets seriously injured, and while
    he's in pain, somebody else cuts him with a knife.  Is that an evil
    act?
    Not if the person cutting's a surgeon, and he's trying to correct
    the problem.]
    
    Please try for some understanding as to what people discussing stuff
    here are all about.  You may discover that things aren't as dark
    as you may suspect them of being.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re b.62:
    
    >There some noters who could offer all the names that Satan goes by.
    >A few come to mind immediately: He is known as a liar, deceiver,
    >the author of confusion. He has many demons in his army.
     
    Agreed.  However, there's a disagreement among theologiand whether
    Satan and Lucifer asre necessarily the same.  Also Satan Merkatrig
    is apparently a different being, such as Astartoth.  There are lots
    of uncertainties about the hierarchy of Hell.
    
    >In summary, there is a spirit realm. It is neither all bad nor all
    >good. It is definitely not neutral! 
    
    There may be more than one spirit realm; some aspects _are_ neutral,
    like elemental beings.                   
    
    >And then, because of good reason, He doesn't want you to mess with
    >that realm. God said it and I believe it. 
    
    I'd like a citation for that.  Were the Magi, whose astrology foretold
    the birth of Our Savior thus condemned, especially after by their
    arts they not only came to worship Him, but through dreams avoided
    returning to Herod to tell him of Jesus?  Working in any realm,
    using any ability, can result in good or evil acts.  It's the intent,
    not the ability, that determines whether something ought to be done
    or not.
    
    Note please that there _are_ strictures against people with "familiar
    spirits"; however, it's well to remember that a "familiar spirit"
    just wasn't a spirit whom one knew; rather, it was a discarnate
    entity that derived sustenence by tapping at one's life forces (i.e.,
    "suckled" on the person).  Again, to understand the stricture,
    knowledge of the subject is highly desirable. 
    
    >...                                 I wonder how many people
    >"use" the white light of Jesus without believing in Jesus!
     
    Then they wouldn't add "of Jesus" to theior characteristizing the
    white light.
                
    Again, seeking knowledge is of itself not necessarily bad.  Disease
    is bad, but how many doctors could treat a disease if they refused
    to study about it?  
    
    Let us continue this discussion all with open eyes and minds.                 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                            

    Another point:                       
    
    >              ...         Also I would like to mention that, the
    >only thing I ment by "Are there any Demons in the house", was, are
    >ther anyone in THIS note file, that are practicing, or studying
    >anything that has to do with the darkside; EX: getting in touch
    >with differant spirits, or studing any kind of witchcraft, or better
    >yet, takeing any part of any kind of ceremonies.
    
    I would like to say, as loudly as possible, that WITCHCRAFT IS *NOT*
    SATANISM!!!!  This point cannot be stressed highly enough - it has
    already caused the death of at least 8 million people.  The Devil
    is not part of Wiccan Thealogy.  How can you worship what you don't
    believe in?
    
    Ceremonies - hmmmm.  Well, most Christian denominations have some
    sort of ceremony of the Eucharist.  Is that what you had in mind?
    Jesus did this ceremony first.  Was he a Satanist?
    
    Also, a group of people sitting in their living room, invoking the
    devil to chat with him are not harming anyone.  Is that Satanic?
    A mob of people murdering millions of people, because they are ugly
    old women, because they are beautiful young women with some semblance
    of ordinary morality, because they had money someone wanted, because
    they had no money to pay off the inquisitors, because they had dared
    to invent something that most of their neighbors couldn't understand,
    because someone didn't like them.  Is this Satanic?
    
    As for the rest of Lorenzo's note about me, I think most of you
    already know that most of what he says is false.  Do I believe in
    God?  Lorenzo doesn't think so.  Have I heard the Christian message
    before?  Yes, many times, both as a Christian and a non-Christian.
    It seems as though he has a very narrow definition of who God is,
    and a vary broad one of who Satan is.
    
    Elizabeth

    RE. prior notes on light
        
    >>...                                 I wonder how many people
    >>"use" the white light of Jesus without believing in Jesus!
     
    >Then they wouldn't add "of Jesus" to their characteristizing the
    >white light.
     
    Small point - just because someone talking about 'the light' 
    doesn't add the words "of Jesus" to their definition or entry
    doesn't necessarily imply that they believe differently than
    you (or, rather, do not believe that the white light is necessarily
    of Jesus).  If someone doesn't put the words in by a simple act of
    omission and you would like further clarification (as to whether 
    they believe the white light is of Jesus in their particular belief 
    structure), then you should ask before wrongly accusing/attacking 
    someone when you don't know for sure exactly what they were 
    referring to.
 
    As for me (you may wonder) - I believe the light is all one in 
    the same - a common goodness, love, truth, knowledge, caring,
    healing, and so on (the opposite of evil and darkness).  For me 
    there is no distinction, because I believe that God, Allah, Jesus,
    Higher Power, All-There-Is, etc., are all one and the same.  The
    presentation mediums are very different, but that's really all.

    It's like language - you can say the same things in many different
    languages, but the end result is usually the same (unless you are
    trying to talk about computers in Latin :^)).  Having been born to
    an English-speaking family/country, I find it easier to express
    myself using the English language (Northeastern US variety), but 
    with a lot of practice combined with living in a non-English-speaking 
    country for a while, I could probably learn to express myself equally 
    as well in the language spoken there.  The message is the same, 
    except presentation mediums are very different.  The language of 
    love and caring is spoken and understood all over the world.
  
    I believe that this approach is much more important that making
    sure everyone believes exactly the same things I do (then I ask
    where does one draw the line before someone is certified 'not OK'
    or 'not a Christian' or 'not a true American', or, or, or,).  Jesus
    and Socrates were killed because some people who lived when they
    did thought them to be evil......because they did not think and 
    behave like 'EVERYBODY ELSE' or 'THE NORM' did.  Imagine that.
    
    Who sets the standards, and who *interprets* the standards and 
    are the interpretations of those 'standards' always infallible?????  
    Or could they POSSIBLY be subject to human error and the current 
    accepted thinking during that particular time in history..........  
    
    If we were all the same, what a boring world it would be!
    
    Cindy    

    Re .66:
    
    Cindy, I think you're misunderstanding the answer (or maybe I
    misunderstood the question).
    
    Assume someone doesn't believe in Jesus (as the Son of God and Savior,
    not as an historical entity); and doesn't believe any power is inherent
    in and/or flows from Him.  Siuch a person, surrounding him- or herself
    with White Light, would be silly to say (or think), "I surround
    myself with the White Light of Jesus," as he or she would be invoking
    someone whom they would not believe in.  Such a person might consider
    surrounding him or herself with "White Light," but here "white"
    merely would refer to purity or some such.
    
    The reverse is not true.  If a person just says, "I surround myself
    with White Light," that does not imply that they don't believe in
    the Savior jusdt because they didn't add "...of Jesus"; and in that,
    I agree with you.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    RE.-1
    
    Steve, 
    
    Agreed.  I just didn't want anyone to assume something due
    to an accidental omission of words.....which seems to be 
    happening with great frequency these days.

    Cindy

    re: .67, .68                   
    
    Steve, I respect the amount of knowledge you possess on
    these subjects, and I agree to a point in what you are
    saying, but I think here it's you and Cindy that make the
    assumption that just because a person uses the name of
    Jesus means he/she believes in Jesus. Not necessarily true!
    It's a generalization that, in this context, can lead
    others astray.
                   
    (Note that we hear God and Jesus used daily in profane
    expressions!)
    
    I made no assumption regarding to accidental omission
    of words...in fact, I made no assumption at all when I said
    that I wonder how many people who use the white light of
    Jesus really believe in Jesus. That is a rhetorical question
    and not one any of you can answer. Just as there are
    people who try spells without knowing how to use them and
    what the consequences are, so also people invoke the white
    light without understanding it. People are fascinated with the
    psychic, drawn like moths drawn to a light, and play trivial games!
    
    
    I know for a fact that a spiritualist group in Connecticut
    believes in the historic Jesus ("he was a prophet, one of
    many") but does not believe in the Diety of Jesus. They
    regularly taught in their development classes to "surround
    yourself with the white light of Jesus"! 
          
    So, you see, not everyone draws clear lines, nor understands
    what they are doing, or why. Since this group denies the
    Diety of Christ, they might as well invoke the white light
    of anyone else they considered a prophet for all the good
    it would do them! 
                                            
    I am not directing my comments to anyone in this conference in 
    particular, nor to anyone's philosphy or belief, so I hope that 
    no one takes this personally and goes on the defensive. 
                  
    Let's jut admit that not everyone subscribes to the same principles, 
    nor even has the same level of knowledge and understanding.     
    
    Irena
    
    
    

    Re .69:
    
    Irena, I didn't take that as a rhetorical question; I thought it
    was something you wished someone to answer.  Your example is a good
    one, though I think that if one did _not_ believe in the deity of
    Our Savior, it would be an odd procedure, for the reasons I explained.
    But then, some people _do_ act oddly. :-)
    
    >                  ...             People are fascinated with the
    >psychic, drawn like moths drawn to a light, and play trivial games!
     
    Um.  That's a slight generalization.  There are some people who
    indeed "play trivial games": I and others in this conference have
    emplasized to the point of near-exhaustion that "playing around"
    is ==>highly<== dangerous and I, for one, have suggested in the
    most emphatic terms I can muster that it's the kind of
    philosophy/activity to be avoided.  I also wrote some notes about
    the danger of moral relativism (see for example my note #12, "Rushing
    In," where I warn against rationalizing behavior, among other things.
    
    Additionally, there are many serious scholars, researchers, and
    in some cases practitioners, who are anything but beguiled and who
    are studying or acting for a better world.  Those of these people
    who are Christian (and this appears to be the majority) are doing
    so in concert with rather than in opposition to their beliefs.
    
    >I know for a fact that a spiritualist group in Connecticut
    >believes in the historic Jesus ("he was a prophet, one of
    >many") but does not believe in the Diety of Jesus. They
    >regularly taught in their development classes to "surround
    >yourself with the white light of Jesus"! 
     
    And then I'd say they're not using their heads.  Why not the "White
    Light" of other prophets, like Isiah, or John, the Baptist, as you
    said?  As I said before, some people sometimes do strange things.
    
    >I am not directing my comments to anyone in this conference in 
    >particular, nor to anyone's philosphy or belief, so I hope that 
    >no one takes this personally and goes on the defensive. 
     
    Well, I doubt that people will necessarily go on the defensive;
    however, it's sometimes necessary to discuss a fine point in order
    to make a case or clear up a misconception.   It is indeed just
    for that reason that I, for one have written so many replies to
    this note.  I _realize_ that not everyone has the same level of
    knowledge or understanding, and I hope that in whatever ways I can
    I'm able to clarify points that might be troubling others.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr./ 

    
    One person's heresy is another person's........
    

    I believe Satan to be a manifestation of all of the very worst 
    characteristics that exist in mankind... intolerance, injustice,
    hatred, cruelty, violence, deceit.  I believe that the bible has
    come very close to being an idol, worshipped today by people who
    are influenced to give up their will to control of another.  I don't
    believe that Jesus ever intended for people to worship the bible
    or for people to worship Him.  I believe that more harm, hurt and
    damage have been done in the name of God than in the name of Satan
    (Spanish Inquisition, destruction of the Mayan cultures, etc). 
    I believe that one can shout the name of Jesus and pound on the
    bible and still be very much a Child Of The Dark,... engrossed in
    the devil's work, ... sowing hatred and distrust, intolerance, and
    putting walls and barriers between people, cultures, family and
    friends.  I believe that we are what we do and not what we say.

    AMEN!!

    Re .72:
    
    I believe that Satan and his legions exist, but I believe that he
    (and they) thrive on, feed on, and encourage the worst characteristics
    of humankind.  Devils love deceit, strife, and hate (including
    intolerance, prejudice, and nonrighteous anger), and they can and
    do play these emotions with the virtuosity that a concert musician
    plays his or her instrument.
    
    A lot of well-meaning folk, both Christian and nonChristian fall
    for the deceivers' tricks.  
    
    >I believe that one can shout the name of Jesus and pound on the
    >bible and still be very much a Child Of The Dark,... engrossed in
    >the devil's work, ... sowing hatred and distrust, intolerance, and
    >putting walls and barriers between people, cultures, family and
    >friends.     ...
    
    Precisely, for there is no lie so powerful as one built on a
    half-truth.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr

	To paraphase Miguel D'escoto 

	As long as President Reagan and the Pope consider 
	themselves Christians I can not. 

	I would add to this list Jim Bakker of PTL fame. 

	Of course Born Again Christians view those that haven't 
	accepted Christ as unsaved and part of "the other team" 

	Given the above, guess I can claim yes to this thought
	provoking question. If my logic doesn't convince you,
        my life style will.

	La_bestia

    re .75:
    
    >As long as President Reagan and the Pope consider 
    >themselves Christians I can not.
    
    By that logic, just because someone whom you despise considers himself
    or herself a citizen of your country, you'll renounce your citizenship.
    Unusual logic, to say the least. 

    >I would add to this list Jim Bakker of PTL fame. 
                                    
    Of people who do not consider themselves Christians? :-)
    
    >Of course Born Again Christians view those that haven't 
    >accepted Christ as unsaved and part of "the other team" 
     
    Definitionally, someone who hasn't "accepted Christ" is, at least,
    not a Christian.  However, where many differ with the Born Agains
    is what "accepting Christ" means -- that is, the form rather than
    the substance.  Anyone who worships Christ with sincerity, humility,
    and love, as Savior and Only Begotton Son of God is a Christian
    in my perspective; however, some people who have denominational
    differences will call those outside their denomination "phony
    Christians."  This is a very sad world-view; I would suggest those
    holding it to check Luke 18:9-14, which one would hope might give
    them a better perspective.  
    
    The "unasved" aren't necessarily part of any "team"; but those who
    treat them with hate instead of love may drive them to that "team."
    That's what's saddest.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  My spanish is rusty: ?Que es goza?   

     The reponses in .72,.74,.76 have been heartwarming.It is nice to
    feel the common spirit.JESUS said to LOVE GOD with all your being.
    This i see as a first step,for he said secondly,to love one another.
    Now if we could accomplish that,we would be much better off,and
    not so concerned about whether one baptism is better than another,or
    if the BIBLE is ALL there is to know about GOD,ETC,ETC!
     I dont believe JESUS wants us to worship him,but to follow his
    basic teaching about love.
    
    PEACE
    MICHAEL
    

re: .-many

Perhaps this conference should be renamed to CHRISTIANS_II.  It seems that it
is going that way.

    
    
    Re.76
    
    	Following is the English translation of Re.75 personal name
    and closing statement:
    	- "No se gana pero se goza": ___"Don't win but enjoy"
        - "La_bestia":___"The Beast"
    
    
    - JSR -
    

    Re .78:
    
    No smiley face?
    
    A problem here is that there are certain groups within the Christian
    faith that have an erroneous idea of a) what this Conference is
    about; b) what paranormal/occult inquiry entails; and c) the
    motivations of the various participants in this Conference.
    
    Given that, when one or more people who either have been "warned"
    about people interested in the paranormal or who have preconceived
    notions that what we discuss here is somehow the work of the Devil
    either want to show us what they perceive to be the "error of our
    ways" or who want one or more of us to say something that they could
    construe as "proof" that the Devil's work is indeed being committed,
    the members of this Conference have three choices: 1) we can ignore
    [and/or delete] any intrusions, 2) we can retaliate in kind (e.g.,
    finding a Conference where they discuss their views and ask what
    _we_ feel to be probing questions), or 3) we can discuss, politely
    and patiently, what the facts actually are.  To me, the first choice
    is a cop-out, and the second choice is negative and malicious. 
    That leads the third choice.
    
    I'll be the first to admit that after the first several exchanges
    from the base note, I contacted the moderators [note to all who
    contacted me offline: I've no moderator privileges in this Confer-
    ence] to alert them to the [to me] unusual situation.  However,
    after buckling down, I worked towards bringing my responses to
    something I hope has proven constructive.
    
    If a person is unalterably prejudiced against any activities mentioned
    positively in this Conference, that one is beyond reason; but this
    will become clear in time.  If a person has an open mind -- only
    if it is open a little, we can reason together.
    
    Why Christian, though?  Because the person [Lorenzo] who asked the
    kickoff question placed it in that context.  I've couched my answers
    in that perspective.
    
    I trust that any further exchanges in this note will be interchanges
    of information rather than sheer declarations of faith.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    While I am tolerant of every person's right to believe what they
    choose,... I insist upon having the same right.  Some of us here
    are not christians.  That (as far as I know) is not yet a crime
    in this country, nor should it put us, nor our notes file in any 
    jeopardy.  I don't feel that we should have to justify why we are
    not christians nor why we do not follow the tenents or dogma of
    that specific faith.  Our right to believe/worship as we see fit
    is guaranteed under the constitution.  Who or what we see fit to
    worship/admire/follow is not the business of the moral majority.
    
    I don't really understand why we should care about whether
    certain groups choose to have an erroneous idea of what this conference
    is about.  If I remember my political law class correctly, what
    other people think about us is not our problem unless they try to
    censor or restrict our activity/communication or damage our
    reputation.  And of course...thats why God made lawyers (though
    He must have been drunk at the time_:-)
    Conspiracy to deprive us of our civil rights is a crime, defamation
    of character is a crime. Explain?  yes,....  communicate? yes,....
    try to reach new levels of understanding? yes... knuckle under?  no way.    

     Re .81:
    
    >              . . . And of course...thats why God made lawyers (though
    >He must have been drunk at the time_:-)
    
    Can't resist adding:  His Son had second thoughts about it, in Luke
    11:46,52 --
    
    "And he said, woe unto you, also, ye lawyers! for bye lade men with
    burdens grevious to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens
    with one finger. ...
    "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge:
    ye entered not in yourselves, and then that were entering in ye
    hindered."
    
    So there! :-D
    
    >I don't really understand why we should care about whether
    >certain groups choose to have an erroneous idea of what this conference
    >is about.  If I remember my political law class correctly, what
    >other people think about us is not our problem unless they try to
    >censor or restrict our activity/communication or damage our
    >reputation.
    
    That's perfectly correct.  However, complicating the factor are
    1) harassment, which can be done anyway and might be hard to prove;
    and 2) the ability to fill us this Conference with nonrelevant stuff,
    oriented towards the religiophilosophical perspective they consider
    "correct."  I think it's easier to speak to the issue enough so
    that further pursuit of it by anyone who remains either uninformed
    or prejudiced would be so absurd as to be self-defeating.
    
    I think that in this note we have reached that point.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
     

    It seems to me that we have had this situation before.  One or two
    zellots of one sort or another get into DEJAVU and get everybody
    all off track.  One thing I have noticed, however, and that is that
    they loose interest by and by and go away.  They probably take away
    a multitude of storys of how they (to paraphrase) "killed us dead,
    and with our heads they went galumphing back".  In the end, however,
    "we the willing" remain.  We are, after all, the people who have an
    interest in those subjects covered by DEJAVU.   And the beat goes
    on ...
    
    Marion

>     	- "No se gana pero se goza": ___"Don't win but enjoy"
	I would have translated the above as "You can't win without
	having fun"

>         - "La_bestia":___"The Beast"  A sarcastic reference to the
	anti-christ. 

	My note was tongue in cheek to respond to the zealots who feel
        their way is the only right one and the rest of our paths are
        destined to corruption. I don't insult christianity in this 
        notesfile, I'd appreciate if people didn;t make pejorative
        innuendos about topics in this file. 

	John  who would like to quote Nietzche's _The_Antichrist but
              will show more self-restraint. 

    Quote anything you want John.  The only spirit path is truth.  The
    only enemy is fear.

    re .78
        Sometimes I would agree with you.  What to me is most distressing,
    however, is that some of the most vocal voices here are self-proclaimed
    Christians.  They further state that they are open to this topic.
    I would find exception with that.  For as some liberalized versions
    of Christianity will allow some stuff (e.g. Tarot) most of these
    "open-minded" individuals will draw the line *somewhere* where it
    becomes threatening to them.  The manifestation of that fear will
    result in statements that will throw lack of credibility on ideas
    and concepts and beliefs that are *too far out* from their Christian
    values.  This will tend to dampen the enthusiasm of someone who
    has more open-mindedness than that.  I wonder what it is, then,
    that has a payoff for these people.  (A payoff is like a reward
    only it has a negative connotation.)  I suspect that it provides
    them with a way to produce outside validation for one.  I further
    suspect that they can then go to their "christian setting" and proclaim
    that they have indeed gone out and done "the Lord's work" (as someone
    else mentioned in a note somewhere that I read today.)  
         Perhaps there can be a separate topic whereby their views can
    be left out?  No, I don't really mean that, for one of the things
    that drew me away from Catholicism was when the priest who led a
    group I was in charge of insisted that the only literature we could
    read (in regards to the Pope's encyclical on birth control) had
    to be by Catholic authors.  Yes, other's views are valuable, but
    to whom?  Time is short...we are all getting older and with that
    the likelihood of death becomes more *real*.  Do we really wish
    to spend our time banging our heads against closed minds?  Or would
    you rather find yourself with like-minded people who make a positive
    and supportive statement in regards to you and your beliefs?  Again,
    it is "choices" that we are given.
         I, for one, will continue to make an effort to make a
    contribution, and I will probably continue to listen to the views
    of others, but I will definitely NOT defend myself or my positions.
    I will take what a biased mind has with a grain of salt, whether
    that be for a non-Christian cause or, especially, from a Christian
    reference.
      
    Frederick
    

        
    Re.84
    
    >     	- "No se gana pero se goza": ___"Don't win but enjoy"
    >	I would have translated the above as "You can't win without
    >	having fun"                                               

     
    Oh well, a phrase closer to the meaning you want would be:"Tu no
    puedes ganar sin gozar" or (less personal):"No se puede ganar sin
    gozar"...or perhaps !:"No se gana sin gozar"... 
    
    Gee..estoy gozando!!
    (Gee, "I am having fun" [with this word game of mine])  :-)
                                                    
    
    
    - JSR -

    It appears to me, that some "christians" have done their course a
    certain amount of damage here. However this goes for some of the
    "open minds" too!! ;-)
                
    I, for one, find that it is OKAY for individuals - no matter what
    faith the claim to belong to - to state their limits, point of view 
    etc., since that is the objective of debate.
    
    Clearly, it must be legal (also in this conference) to attempt to
    guide fellow-being around, what one as an individual - for one or
    the other reason - recognizes as a pitfall. This also seems to be,
    what both parties are trying, but they clash never-the-less.
    
    I'd strongly recommend noters/needers to read 457.*, for some possible
    theoretical explanation of what has be going on in 443 lately.
    
    For the benefit of Loranzo and other (and to keep the fire burning
    - "Purgatory, we need you"), I'll throw in the likely observation,
    that some secret/esoteric teaching/system/sects/groups/activities
    are just THAT, that it is you wouldn't know (let alone understand
    or being able to judge) what's going on. This is, as I have tried
    to point out in an other note (which, as it happened immidiately 
    became silent - did ya get it: move on, keep the good work of this
    conference going), the reason why hardly anyone today knows, what
    original christianity (the work of JC) was all about - and possibly
    also why a lot of "open minds" and non-christians are around these
    ages.
    
    Nis Schmidt, who-happens-to-naively-beleive-he-is-entitled-to-have-his-
    opinion-even-though-he-does-not-support-it-with-quotes-from-heavy-books-
    nor-was-born-in-gods-own-land
    
    P.S. I have found it usefull, when some entry I happen to be reading
    here is getting too far out for my taste, to simply press KP-3;
    I beleive this requires no special priviledge....
    

    
    Reading this note and several replies to it I immediately sense
    that regardless of what it is that Lorenzo is actually trying to
    find out, there seems to be this air of nervousness (enough to
    generate 88 responses so far) about demons and devils. They worry
    me as much as the next guy but when you really take a look, there
    are millions of other things that are really of greater threat to
    ourselves and our future than these. I mean earthquakes, pit bulls
    nuclear war, AIDS, air travel, etc.. 
    
    I do not believe that there is any "absolute" evil (in the sense
    that there is God), but there may very well be demons and monsters
    of unimaginable terror. Realize though, and this is my point; in
    the face of things we need to learn that such evil is projected
    from within our own selves and represents only a small portion of
    the many hurdles we must master in our spiritual growth. 
    
    Learn through facing such fears directly that to "center" in any
    given instance is to experience the ultimate powerlessness of the
    evil that appears before us, whether the evil is something projected
    from inside of us or whether there is, in fact, some dark entity
    preying on our relative lack of enlightenment.
    
    It begins by simply taking faith from our true intuition that we
    have ultimate power...
    
    

    Re .89:
    
    > ...         there seems to be this air of nervousness (enough to
    >generate 88 responses so far) about demons and devils. 
    
    I doubt it's "nervousness" on the part of many of us; rather, any
    demons or devils about might be treated as one might treat potentially
    dangerous wild animals: give them a wide berth.  Recall that the
    person menaced by them generally has to attract them somehow.
    
    >       ...      we need to learn that such evil is projected
    from within our own selves ... 
    
    That only as a valid statement if one assumes that the demons, etc.
    aren't real.  If they are not projections, assuming they are could
    be dangerous.
    
    >Learn through facing such fears directly that to "center" in any
    >given instance is to experience the ultimate powerlessness of the
    >evil that appears before us, whether the evil is something projected
    >from inside of us or whether there is, in fact, some dark entity
    >preying on our relative lack of enlightenment.
    
    Would you expand on that?  Using the wild animal analogy, should
    we assume that a wild animal is ultimately powerless because we
    face it directly?
    
    >
    >It begins by simply taking faith from our true intuition that we
    >have ultimate power... 
    
    But is that an "intuition"?  "Ultimate" power?  I would not presume
    to that, since from my perspective, there is but one Ultimate Power.
    I do _not_ wish this to metamorphose into a religious discusdsion,
    so let me merely ask the following: if more than one of us has ultimate
    power, is that power really ultimate? [i.e., can there be more than
    one identical superlative?]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    re .90 (Steve)
    
    >That only as a valid statement if one assumes that the demons, etc.
    >aren't real.  If they are not projections, assuming they are could be
    >dangerous. 
     
    They can both be projections and be real as well.  I think that
    there are both kinds of evil entities.  The projections come from
    denying one's "shadow side".  Still, from a practical standpoint,
    running into a projection of someone's shadow side is equally dangerous
    as running into an evil, autonomous entity.
    
    Elizabeth