Path: Supernews!supernews.com!news.iquest.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!disgorge.news.demon.net!demon!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!oldcity.demon.co.uk!oldcity.demon.co.uk!shez From: Shez Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.satanism Subject: Re: Defining Satanism was RE: Satanism: a final solution Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 15:52:50 +0100 Organization: D.S.G. Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <01bc5075$295a22e0$d97a4e81@grudd.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <01bc5715$f7780920$86e6adce@house> <336B6F2D.7314@ncweb.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: oldcity.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: oldcity.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03 Lines: 57 Xref: Supernews alt.religion.wicca:68833 alt.pagan:208904 alt.satanism:67161 In article <336B6F2D.7314@ncweb.com>, tredara@ncweb.com writes >> ...what in the hell does "historical Satanism" have to do with this argument? >> Gwydyon is attempting to define Kerry's religion for her - anyone has the >> right to define their own religious and philosophical beliefs. One need >> not have an extensive history attached to their belief system in order for >> it to be valid. > > >For all that folks dis the New Age, I'm amazed that that particular but >of newage tripe can still pass muster at all. Why should religion be >different from any other human endeavor? If you call your business a >bank, but only sell bagels, you are not running a bank. If you call your >religion Christianity, but only put up images of Marx and Lennon and >burn incense to them, you are not a Christian. If 'Wiccan', or >'Satanist' is to mean anything, it must be in accord with common usage. >That's how words work. A group can work to change usage and definition, >as Witches and Wiccans and and Pagans have done for 30 years, but it's a >long task. In the meantime, the argument that 'everyone gets to define >their religion exactly as they wish, call it what they want, and expect >others to take that seriously' just doesn't wash. Religions, like >everything else, are defined by cultures, not by individuals. > >So it's perfectly proper to ask anyone for the historic background and >meaning of their claims. > >>You can argue the fine points of >> what you feel Satanism to be, but that does not change the fact that ToS >> defines itself as a Satanic organization. > >But self-definition has no intrinsic valdity without context. The ToS, >or anyone else, could be mistaken in their self-definition. > > >> MALACHAIUS INVICTUS >> > >Ian But for many people religion is personal they dont want to share in the common beleifs nor do they want to be dictated to by culture, or social convention. Spirituality is personal, and often private, I know many christians who worship in churches in the conventional way, and then worship by themselves far differently, many would be mistaken for pagans, they commune with nature, and find their own links to that spirituality they call God. I do beleive that personal spirituality is a path we are all moving towards, not conventional religion, not priests and priestesses of whatever religion, passing on messages from their god, but your own body and mind in union searching for what deity means to you, and how to become as much one with that deity as it is possible to be. We are each capable of reaching that union, of walking that path, and many many more people are making that decision and stepping out to find the ultimate ( for them ) truth. -- Shez shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/ ------------------------------------------------------------------