XPost: alt.magick.tyagi, alt.satanism, alt.religion.satanism
XPost: alt.satanism.art
From: a@a.com
I think you are reading too much into everything.
The pope is satan?!?!? He is the most holy and the most sinful at the same
time?!?!?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I reckon you'll be bouncing off rubber walls soon if you continue to see
little meanings in everything.
"Brett Robertson" wrote in message
news:41f468ae_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> > I don't know what your quibble is with the use of the word "legit," but
it's
> > meant in in a very practical way. Neither ToS nor SR uses any concept
of
> > some Satan The Devil in their religion. It's very simple.
>
> Likewise, the Catholic church builds their
> official doctrine on (Papal) Decree. Seems the
> groups you espouse "decree" that there is no Satan
> and so "there is not"? Let there be light, and
> there was!
>
> As for the Catholic Church, the Pope is
> "infallible". I've a theory* why this conclusion
> is true; though whether it is or not is irrelevant
> to my point which is: If one claims that
> authority makes a thing so; then, that authority
> MUST be "infallible" (at least in theory) such
> that the reasoning holds true.
>
> I thought you were showing cause why there is not
> a Satan in Satanism. Seems you were merely
> stating the official doctrine of certain specific
> groups. I see no reason from what you've given to
> conclude that the opinions of these groups are
> relevant.
>
> * Confession is a bottom-up process focused on
> "sin" (which denotes the least of the least in
> this case). The infallibility of the Pope is
> based on the ultimate conclusion that,
> hierarchically, he must be the least sinful and so
> the most holy in order for this system to work.
> And so, his "power" (over those below him) reaches
> to the depths of human kind through
> chain-of-command "making right" everything which
> is so surrendered to "Him".
>
> Were the Pope at the bottom of this command (as he
> also is, conceptually -- since he becomes
> responsible for the lowliest person's actions in
> this way); we might think of him as "Satan" (so
> goes my theory) because he would have both power
> AND sin ... and his "infallibility" might even
> need be enforced through force (as is the nature
> of humanity when oppressed by those at the top).
>
> In this sense, the Catholic church "is" Satanic.
> And note: Their religion evolved from an Evil
> foundation (in the Garden of Eden, as per their
> own mythological history). Though, we might say
> the outcome of this "original sin" has been
> pre-determined in such that, by rising through the
> ranks, the Devil *does become* the Pope.
>
> To me, this makes Catholicism a belief system
> which is logically sound. And they ARE (also?) a
> legitimate religion -- even an "authority" (as you
> are?). One difference of opinion... the Pope is
> one shy of *God* (ie. "Satan" is a "God" in this
> scenario).
>
> Seems Catholicism is a religion which "works".
> The beginning of their religion suggests a reason
> for the end of it. And this manifests as a
> technology which (apparently) makes this happen in
> a real and measurable way -- such that He who is
> infallible IS God.
>
> Which at least suggests a practicality behind
> putting the Satan in SATANism (unless you are
> arguing that the Devil to which the Catholic
> church adheres has NO relation to your own
> religion -- which only weakens your argument as
> far as I'm concerned).
>
> I don't suppose you are Catholic?
>
> Thus: Failing to show any such technique,
> technology, nor "tool" (ie. no "social machine")
> -- as such, without any *human mechanism* to
> support your assertions -- you must surely appeal
> to a god?
>
> Or, is it fair to say that your best argument is
> that "Sat" and "Tan" are "legitimate words"?
>
> --
> "If you make an effort to act rightly, you will
> act wrongly."
>
> Brett Robertson: Http://www.mindrec.net
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
