Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.orisha,alt.satanism Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet.bible,alt.religion.scientology,alt.satanism Subject: Plagiarism and Ignorance in Religion References: <72a20c0c.0402051837.585ebb92@posting.google.com> <4029FD7A.F3D90EB5@luckymojo.com> <808df0f8.0402131641.35377abb@posting.google.com> From: nocTifer Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com User-Agent: nn/6.6.0 Lines: 99 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:56:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1078012563 208.201.242.18 (Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:56:03 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:56:03 PST Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:46108 talk.religion.misc:409169 alt.christnet.bible:412974 alt.religion.christian:1352075 alt.religion.orisha:15407 alt.satanism:240778 50040229 vii om Hail Satan! mdhjwh@iprimus.com.au (MDHJWH) posts to usenet: # ...Has me thinking of so many gospels & testaments that not # only plagerise preceeding mythology but claim transmission # of such direct from the almighty. in general, religious scripture is unreliable as testimony to factual events. it is helpful as supplement, but its revered status and (typically) edited condition make it likely an object of considerable crafting and fabrication, if not direct replay from previous, competing traditions. in the case of Christian "Gospels" there is a good deal of misunderstanding as to the reliability and origin of this scripture. many Christians are unaware that there is good reason scholars of Christian scripture call Matthew, Mark, and Luke "the Synoptics" (on account of their having been reflections of a previous, single, now lost, text). the ignorant malleability of religious makes itself even more egregiously blatant when we have mass-media blitzes such as the Gibsonian "Passion" presented even within 'news' publications such as "Newsweek" as 'historical', when in fact there is very little evidence to support more than incidental details regarding a crucified rebellious Joshua. few of the faithful seriously consider the dearth of substance and the large cache of contradictory evidence which undermines the factual contentions of the religious stories they regard as fact (this makes itself most blatantly evident in astronomical and geological claims that have no correlation in contemporaneous cultures). the condition of what Christians regard as 'testaments' is even more extravagant, since the details of the stories of the character Jesus in their scripture are *made to correlate with prophecies contained in Jewish scripture*, an obvious response intending to convert Jews inasmuch as the figure is presented as something important to them ("The Messiah") and provided with earmark qualifications whereby all manner of claims may be justified (genetic descendancy, fulfillment of prophecy, demonstration of supernatural powers, survival of death, etc., etc.) to those whose axioms include faith in a Jewish Creator God. that more Jews don't consider Christianity to be a blatant rip-off and offensive to their religion is interesting. to call the Torah and its attendant scripture, attributed itself to Jewish culture-heroes, 'The Old Testament' is in fact a SATANIC activity --> one obviously adversarial and intending to be used in conversion of competing religious. the claim of *plagiarism*, however, is difficult to bring to bear on scriptures in which there was an oral tradition which preceded it. age and proliferation of scripture for the purpose of conversion make it unlikely that extended copyrights will be available for anything but particular presentations of the material in question. in fact, only modern religions such as Thelema (Crowley), Scientology (Hubbard), and Satanism (LaVey), have been able to successfully defend their scripture from being used to novel ends within publishing efforts. their new status not only makes it easier to defend such expression as subject to control, it also makes it easier to identify the quality and character of the source. too many times old religious traditions promote their scripture in ways which, by scrutinizing standards, cannot be reliably defended (as NOT pseudepigraphic, for example, or as from the time period it pretends to be describing, etc.). very few scriptures self-describe as "from the almighty", however. almost all but the most ignorant religious are convinced that the words were literally put to page by the god which they worship. usually they'll maintain that the god had someone write it FOR them (exceptions include fabulous stone-writings of "Commandments", but there is no reliable evidence of their extranatural origin beyond the claim of the scripture and religious themselves). graduating away from issued instructions from the divine and the writings of secretary-prophets giving form to the utterance of the god whom they worship, we have the reflections of various mystics and religious who have had some transcendental experience, but do not claim that gods are issuing proclamations, directions, or informative text to the faithful through some chosen intermediary. it is only these latter individuals who should really be available to criticize for plagiarism. the god will NOT be produced to defend the text attributed to them. peace be with you, nocTifer -- yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired; HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street addy to: catalogue@luckymojo.com