The British Armed Forces has officially recognised
its first registered Satanist, according to a
newspaper report.
Naval technician Chris Cranmer, 24, has been
allowed to register by the captain of HMS
Cumberland.
The move will mean that he will now be allowed to
perform Satanic rituals on board the vessel.
According to the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Cranmer
realised he was a Satanist nine years ago.
At the time he stumbled across a copy of the Satanic
Bible, written by Church of Satan founder Anton
Szandor LaVey.
He said: "I then read more and more and came to
realise I'd always been a Satanist, just simply
never knew."
Mr Cranmer, who is from Edinburgh, is now lobbying
the Ministry of Defence to make Satanism a registered
religion in the armed forces.
A spokesman for the Royal Navy said: "We are an equal
opportunities employer and we don't stop anybody from
having their own religious values."
The Church of Satan was established in San Francisco
in 1966.
LaVey was its high priest until his death in 1997,
then again in 2001, and one more time in 2003.
Followers live by the Nine Satanic Statements, which
include "Satan represents indulgence instead of
abstinence", "Satan represents vengeance instead of
turning the other cheek" and "Satan represents all
of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical,
mental, or emotional gratification".
--
"I'd just like to say I'm sailing with the Rock
and I'll be back like Independence Day with Jesus,
June 6, like the movie, big mothership and all.
I'll be back."
--Executed Serial killer Aileen Wuornos
Correspondent:: "ArWeGod" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:55:24 GMT
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:417B1983.380F@succeeds.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3948329.stm
> Followers live by the Nine Satanic Statements, which
> include "Satan represents indulgence instead of
> abstinence", "Satan represents vengeance instead of
> turning the other cheek" and "Satan represents all
> of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical,
> mental, or emotional gratification".
I think it is wrong to describe your beliefs in the negative. Just as
Radio should not be called Wireless, Satanism should be describe as the
opposite of the Sermon on the Mound.
It seems that the Satanists are just Anti-Xian. Everything they base
their religion and self-worth on is merely being an anti-bible person.
Where is the originality that the Lord of Chaos would prefer? Where is
the fresh take on Evil? Where is the New Evil that the world craves in
"these times".
With these watered down anti-belief statements it is no wonder that
Satanism is failing. "You're Fired!"
--
ArWe!God
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:36:17 -0700
--------
ArWeGod wrote:
>
> I think it is wrong to describe your
> beliefs in the negative.
With some degree of philosophical seriousness,
arguments can be made that negative beliefs,
even what in this case, you might call
"derivative negativeness" has some legitimacy.
Or at least equal legitimacy to other religious
beliefs.
One thing would be to look at Satanism as a
polar opposite to Xtianity. More like the north
and south poles of a magnet than a dichotomy of
"good and evil". Satan is only "bad" if you are
on Jesus' side. From Satan's side, Jesus looks
bad. But in truth, following this logic, "good
and evil" would have no more meaning than whether
it's better to navigate using the North Star or
the Southern Cross.
A Satanist could also take the point of view
that Satan is going to whoop Jesus in the big
fight, so it's better to be on the side of the
winner.
They might discard Jesus altogether, pointing
out that Satan makes his appearance early on in
the old testament, and even if Jesus is a fake,
Satan is still real.
Yet another argument is that Satan predates
JHVH, and the latter is a false usurper of
Satan's rule. Kind of a "Satan is God" thing.
Anyway, if you're looking for a "new evil",
you might actually find it by going further
back than Anton. Lots of cultures have devil
characters in their traditions, and even for
a time, the Catholics tried to create a "task
organization" or a hierarchy chart of Hell,
which *they* guessed would be a mirror image
of heaven.
Several amusing points there. First of all,
Hell has a really bloated government. Kind
of like having a complete monarchical government
*and* a parliamenty government *and* a bureaucracy
*and* a huge war department. Literally like a
one-world government. The vast majority of demons
don't want anything to do with people and are
concerned with non-demonic support activities,
such as cooking, wine-making, and a lot of things
you would have to extrapolate, like farming and
mining, etc., unless they have a Star Trek
replicator or something.
The demons that do "bad" things are limited to a
few hundred out of a vast number, perhaps millions;
and even they often are experts at non-"bad" things,
too. Way back, angels were condemned for teaching
mankind things like herbalism, makeup, public
speaking (oratory), music & dance. God did *not*
want mankind to know that shit and a whole bunch
of other information. The damned angels gave this
to mankind in exchange for pussy.
Which leads us to the primary reason for Satanism.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: "ghost" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:48:37 GMT
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:417BCBF1.5351@succeeds.com...
> ArWeGod wrote:
> >
> > I think it is wrong to describe your
> > beliefs in the negative.
>
> With some degree of philosophical seriousness,
> arguments can be made that negative beliefs,
> even what in this case, you might call
> "derivative negativeness" has some legitimacy.
> Or at least equal legitimacy to other religious
> beliefs.
>
> One thing would be to look at Satanism as a
> polar opposite to Xtianity. More like the north
> and south poles of a magnet than a dichotomy of
> "good and evil". Satan is only "bad" if you are
> on Jesus' side. From Satan's side, Jesus looks
> bad. But in truth, following this logic, "good
> and evil" would have no more meaning than whether
> it's better to navigate using the North Star or
> the Southern Cross.
>
> A Satanist could also take the point of view
> that Satan is going to whoop Jesus in the big
> fight, so it's better to be on the side of the
> winner.
>
> They might discard Jesus altogether, pointing
> out that Satan makes his appearance early on in
> the old testament, and even if Jesus is a fake,
> Satan is still real.
>
> Yet another argument is that Satan predates
> JHVH, and the latter is a false usurper of
> Satan's rule. Kind of a "Satan is God" thing.
>
> Anyway, if you're looking for a "new evil",
> you might actually find it by going further
> back than Anton. Lots of cultures have devil
> characters in their traditions, and even for
> a time, the Catholics tried to create a "task
> organization" or a hierarchy chart of Hell,
> which *they* guessed would be a mirror image
> of heaven.
>
> Several amusing points there. First of all,
> Hell has a really bloated government. Kind
> of like having a complete monarchical government
> *and* a parliamenty government *and* a bureaucracy
> *and* a huge war department. Literally like a
> one-world government. The vast majority of demons
> don't want anything to do with people and are
> concerned with non-demonic support activities,
> such as cooking, wine-making, and a lot of things
> you would have to extrapolate, like farming and
> mining, etc., unless they have a Star Trek
> replicator or something.
>
> The demons that do "bad" things are limited to a
> few hundred out of a vast number, perhaps millions;
> and even they often are experts at non-"bad" things,
> too. Way back, angels were condemned for teaching
> mankind things like herbalism, makeup, public
> speaking (oratory), music & dance. God did *not*
> want mankind to know that shit and a whole bunch
> of other information. The damned angels gave this
> to mankind in exchange for pussy.
>
> Which leads us to the primary reason for Satanism.
You might find Elaine Pagels' "Origin of Satan" interesting.
I can't find it right now, but as I recall, Pagels points out that the
original "shaitan" were YHVH's assigned punishers, prosecutors and
persecutors... shaitan being translated as "adversary". Job was beset with
his troubles by the shaitan.
Sort of like the OT Yahweh's district attorneys and agent provacateurs. In
this light nenslo might be considered to function as alt.slack's shaitan.
It's only in some of the NT writings that shaitan takes on a connotation of
adversarial evil... notably in Paul's reference to the Jews who will not
convert to Christianity being Satan.
Many people maintain that the epic duality of God/Satan as eternal enemies
owes more to Manicheism than Judaism... much like the "Christ arisen"
concept is more likely Mithraic than Hebrew. Both Mithraism and Manicheism
were major beliefs of the Roman Empire's eastern/Persian military levies, so
the Christian Roman Empire simply subsumed them. Just like voodoo.
And Santa Claus who is still Wotan YOU FUCKERS.
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:17:03 -0700
--------
ghost wrote:
>
> In this light nenslo might be considered to
> function as alt.slack's shaitan.
I like to think of him as alt.slack's Shai-Hulud.
> And Santa Claus who is still Wotan YOU FUCKERS.
I cannot think of Wotan without thinking of the
pinball game 'Fireball', the hardest pinball game
ever. A free game was like 14,000 points, and you
were damned lucky to get more than like 1,000. In
playing that game for YEARS I won ONE free game
ONCE after almost 15 mintues of play.
You can see Wotan in the upper right corner, along
with the HELL SPINNER in the middle of the damned
thing. You could tell WHILE YOUR BALL WAS STILL AT
THE TOP OF THE MACHINE IF YOU WOULD LOSE IT WITHOUT
GETTING SO MUCH AS A SINGLE BUMP. This was because
the gap between the flippers was like FOUR INCHES!
Note: this is a *later* version of the game, in
which the main flippers were BIGGER, and it had a
digital points counter that was like 100x the
original "belt" counter.
Point inflation kind of pissed me off. You get
some of the old pinballers and tell them that you
made over 10,000 points on "The Original Fireball"
and they would know you were a big-time pinball
EXPERT.
Most new games, even if you TILT the fuckers as
soon as your fire the ball, you'll get 50,000
points or some shit like that. Low possible
5-ball (!) score on a Fireball original was
maybe 150 points.
--
Rev. nu-monet
Founder and High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:23:53 -0700
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>
Here's a picture of a Fireball with a "belt"
counter. I can tell that it's frozen in the
'multiball' mode, which means that whoever
playing it had played a damn good game. I
also note that the bottom flippers had moved
into the "closed" position, where from 4" apart
they would move together to block the ball.
And goddammit, even *that* didn't work, because
as soon as you flipped one of your flippers,
the ball would just drop behind it and be lost.
And all too soon, the damn things would part
again, leaving that 4" gap.
After all that shooting, you can also see that
his score is a fairly good 5,360 points. The
last zero was just painted on.
--
"We've pretty much just been patrolling
and flying helicopters all over the place,
and when we see something bad, we blow it up."
-- Maj. David Holahan, US Marines
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:18:30 GMT
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Most new games, even if you TILT the fuckers as
> soon as your fire the ball, you'll get 50,000
> points or some shit like that. Low possible
> 5-ball (!) score on a Fireball original was
> maybe 150 points.
Put a piece of electrical tape over the thousands, hundreds, tens, and
units digits on the score display. PRESTO! OLD SKOOL IN DA HAUS!