At least one brand of Satanism works by something like aversion therapy, which in itself is legitimate and helpful. But repeatedly, whether ritualistically or not, performing acts that are known to be dumb or mildly distasteful or telling a trivial lie(saying 'the dot is blue' when the dot is red etc) can be used to desensitize a person to their repulsion instinct and open doors to going nastier places. Remember when the 'slippery slope' was something that we made fun of. Here at the bottom of said slope everything has a different look to it. At least I hope this is the bottom, don't wanna go much further down.
Just realised that this went out with the title truncated to Why Abortions should be Performed, that was not intentional. I looked for how to change it, but can't find it right now. Whoops.
About why they should be performed in backalleys with coathangers? I thought I did. Things that are evil should look and feel evil and be dangerous. Actually, I would prefer if the only way to perform an abortion was for the mother to lay on a filthy altar with a bloody pentagram on her belly and offer it to Satan. Not because I want offerings made to Satan but because I want people to have clarity about the real meaning of their actions. But failing that I think a backalley coathanger is far preferable to a 'medical' setting. Though perhaps more and more we are realising that the medical setting and the backalley witch have more in common than we thought.
Evil is not providing quality and informative sex education. Evil is not providing easily accessed and safe birth control. Evil is thinking you should have some say over someone else’s body. Evil is playing political football in the front yard while the elite class is sneaking out the back door with the treasury. Evil is addressing trivial bullshit that also happens to be immoral and repugnant while we have serious issues to self.
Would you like them to be informed of the high rate of depression, regret, and suicidal ideation that follows abortion? Is that part of your sex Ed curriculum?
Or perhaps about the links between artificial estrogens and cancers, depression, and loss of libido?
Show me where I have tried to control what anyone does. I'll wait.
You connect your comment about material 'quality of life' with an unreflective and poorly thought out comment on what My Lord was and is like. What quality of life did the Man f Sorrows have, who had no place to lay His head? To invoke Him while arguing for the importance of material prosperity, the One who despised the rich and at ease, who regarded all of the things that make up that quality of life as worthless, is to prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
Christianity and Middle class American conservatism are almost as much strangers as your unreflective worship of the Current Thing.
I would like you to furnish credible citations for your claims otherwise, sit down and be quiet.
Your assumption that my comment about quality of life concerns material things and monetary pleasures is ridiculous.
If you’re really concerned about artificial estrogen’s and their affect on women and less so men, you should be demanding the end to fossil fuel extraction and use. All of the pollutants, pesticides, fertilizers, containers packages…. On and on and on are made from fossil fuels which have gigantic amounts of estrogen shaped molecules. Endocrine disruptors. You’re such a charlatan.
Actually I agree completely. And since you already know quite a bit about synthetic estrogens and their harmful affects I don't see any need for citations. Surely you must agree that putting synthetic estrogen into teenagers bodies without any realistic disclosure of the dangers is poor medical practice?
Suggesting that abortions be performed with a coat hanger in the back alley is a statement insisting control of someone else’s body and decision. You don’t even hear yourself you?
I said 'should be'. I didn't write a bill or petition a congressman. It is an example of the dangers of the form of a thing not matching its reality, a wicked, deadly act being masked as a benevolent lifesaving act. The example was written in a deliberately provocative way to make people think. For the success of this tactic I consider you exhibit A.
Evil is not providing the people we have in the living world already high quality of life. To insist that we have more that are not wanted is lunacy and completely not Christlike concerning the topic.
> He followed up with this note which is good and stirred up a lot of thoughts:
Actually his note is Evil, in the sense that it consists of a Satanic inversion of reality.
Let's take his levels one at a time:
1. Tactical anti-establishment. Mr. Raven dismisses these people as motivated by money or power. However, these are the most reasonable people. I consider my self here. I support the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. I'm anti-establishment to the extent the establishment opposes them, and pro-establishment to the extent the establishment supports them.
2. Strategically anti-establishment. Mr. Raven calls these people "the real deal, loyal trustworthy, virtuous, with Roman soldier stoic characteristics". However, these people are far more likely to be motivated by power than type 1's. In any case, these kind of fanatic true believers are liable to betray you over minor differences of vision, or for various tactical considerations.
3. Spiritually anti-establishment. This is the level of Luciferians and Gnostics. Rebellion for the sake of rebellion. These are the people Chesterton described in the quote "The innocent rank and file [anarchists] are disappointed because the bomb has not killed the king; but the high-priesthood are happy because it has killed somebody." Mr. Raven attempts to dragoon several famous people into this category, some of whom were indeed Gnostics, others would be outraged at the position attributed to them.
The constitution is a contract between the several states in which they give parts of their individual sovereignty to create a new federal government. All that it does is define which parts of their pre-existing powers that they are giving to this 'entity' that they called into existence. Ergo, any powers that the states did not have the federal government cannot have. This is an ancient principle well summed up as, 'No stream can rise higher than its source.'
A contract entered into between parties is not binding on those who are not party to the contract and certainly cannot place limitations or requirements on non-signatories or change the pre-existing laws and rules on which it is based.
I notice that you failed to interact substantively with anything that I said which seems to be your M.O. If you have something worthwhile to say then you are welcome to say it. Otherwise, shit in your own yard sir.
This sort of is my yard, that's what the big Comfort with Truth banner means. Welcome to substack if you need anymore tips on how it works I'm happy to help.
If you have anything on topic to say I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I have never used the moderation features but much more OT trolling and I will take them for a spin.
I would love to set you straight on topic abortion.
Prohibition of any kind is draconian. It has a 100% rate of failure and only non-critical thinkers and people with unannounced agendas think otherwise
If you really want to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies, mandate reversible vasectomies.
To think you should have any sway over someone else’s bodily autonomy is so ridiculous and self important, even if it wasn’t terrible idea to panic, you would’ve just qualified yourself from the discussion.
I appreciate your transition to substantive discourse. You've made my day.
Is the prohibition of murdering children draconian, and are all prohibitions of homicide failures and the result of unannounced agendas, or might a prohibition of killing children be a reasonable law made with the intent to save life and be reasonably successful in that end?
I don't want to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy, like everything else in life, happens to us due mainly to forces outside of our control, even when the forces act through our own biology. I don't see this as a problem. I see deadbeat dads as a problem and the societal concept of the disposable dad as a problem.
If you read the post then you know that I was arguing that the form of a thing should match its essence, but perhaps that is too nebulous for you. I never said that abortions should not be performed, but rather that their aesthetics should match their reality, as the sacrifice of an innocent on the altar of the dark god of convenience.
A fetus is a collection of cells. Not a child. Simple experiment will prove my theory and concept. You can freeze a fetus, thawed out and it will continue to do it biological thing. Try freezing a child.
Since the Bible is your life tenant, supposedly, the old testament claims that life begins at birth. The New Testament does not address it.
Your opinion, uneducated and biased should have no sway on national policy. Jesus
New laws, like 'you must take a poorly designed and manufactured gene therapy treatment into your body'always tend to totalitarianism. Old Laws like 'thou shalt not kill' generally tend to freedom.
I am in fact a net negative to the universe, known in more civilized discourse as a Sinner. What's your plan to deal with your self-righteousness? When doing better doesn't work out for you come back and we can talk about it.
Complete hypocrisy. Abortion doesn’t affect anyone else but the patient and her partner. Your freedom stops where mine begins. Not being vaccinated against basic infections and disease is endangering my health and life.
To my knowledge there’s been no “gene therapy”
Vaccine introduced in the United States. Again, you are speaking on subject you obviously know nothing about.
Granted, the vaccination for Covid is not perfect, by a long shot. That said if it was not for the mRNA technology, we would’ve easily lost tens of millions more lives. To create the 2 billion injections needed for initial vaccination and a couple rounds of boosters, it would’ve taken five or six years using the traditional egg culture method. Seriously man, if you’re a theologian, you should stick to theology.
My plan is to continue working on issues and that keep Americans from having a high quality of life. Fossil fuels, industrial complexes in corporate control army main problems in this country currently. Not someone else’s health decisions.
My comment was quite substantial and directly Porten at your statement. The constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion.
Your opinions on the subject are motivated entirely by that very object. Your hypocrisy and blatant stupidity is truly impressive. If you have a topic of expertise, you should stick to that. Political science is not it
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' Does it sound like it means what you think it does?
The constitution's only statement on the subject of religion is to prevent congress from requiring religious observance. Does your pompousness usually impress people or is this the first time you tried to fly that kite?
At least one brand of Satanism works by something like aversion therapy, which in itself is legitimate and helpful. But repeatedly, whether ritualistically or not, performing acts that are known to be dumb or mildly distasteful or telling a trivial lie(saying 'the dot is blue' when the dot is red etc) can be used to desensitize a person to their repulsion instinct and open doors to going nastier places. Remember when the 'slippery slope' was something that we made fun of. Here at the bottom of said slope everything has a different look to it. At least I hope this is the bottom, don't wanna go much further down.
Just realised that this went out with the title truncated to Why Abortions should be Performed, that was not intentional. I looked for how to change it, but can't find it right now. Whoops.
So are you going to write the post about abortions?
About why they should be performed in backalleys with coathangers? I thought I did. Things that are evil should look and feel evil and be dangerous. Actually, I would prefer if the only way to perform an abortion was for the mother to lay on a filthy altar with a bloody pentagram on her belly and offer it to Satan. Not because I want offerings made to Satan but because I want people to have clarity about the real meaning of their actions. But failing that I think a backalley coathanger is far preferable to a 'medical' setting. Though perhaps more and more we are realising that the medical setting and the backalley witch have more in common than we thought.
Sorry for the late reply just saw this comment.
Evil is not providing quality and informative sex education. Evil is not providing easily accessed and safe birth control. Evil is thinking you should have some say over someone else’s body. Evil is playing political football in the front yard while the elite class is sneaking out the back door with the treasury. Evil is addressing trivial bullshit that also happens to be immoral and repugnant while we have serious issues to self.
Would you like them to be informed of the high rate of depression, regret, and suicidal ideation that follows abortion? Is that part of your sex Ed curriculum?
Or perhaps about the links between artificial estrogens and cancers, depression, and loss of libido?
Show me where I have tried to control what anyone does. I'll wait.
You connect your comment about material 'quality of life' with an unreflective and poorly thought out comment on what My Lord was and is like. What quality of life did the Man f Sorrows have, who had no place to lay His head? To invoke Him while arguing for the importance of material prosperity, the One who despised the rich and at ease, who regarded all of the things that make up that quality of life as worthless, is to prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
Christianity and Middle class American conservatism are almost as much strangers as your unreflective worship of the Current Thing.
I would like you to furnish credible citations for your claims otherwise, sit down and be quiet.
Your assumption that my comment about quality of life concerns material things and monetary pleasures is ridiculous.
If you’re really concerned about artificial estrogen’s and their affect on women and less so men, you should be demanding the end to fossil fuel extraction and use. All of the pollutants, pesticides, fertilizers, containers packages…. On and on and on are made from fossil fuels which have gigantic amounts of estrogen shaped molecules. Endocrine disruptors. You’re such a charlatan.
Actually I agree completely. And since you already know quite a bit about synthetic estrogens and their harmful affects I don't see any need for citations. Surely you must agree that putting synthetic estrogen into teenagers bodies without any realistic disclosure of the dangers is poor medical practice?
Suggesting that abortions be performed with a coat hanger in the back alley is a statement insisting control of someone else’s body and decision. You don’t even hear yourself you?
I said 'should be'. I didn't write a bill or petition a congressman. It is an example of the dangers of the form of a thing not matching its reality, a wicked, deadly act being masked as a benevolent lifesaving act. The example was written in a deliberately provocative way to make people think. For the success of this tactic I consider you exhibit A.
Evil is not providing the people we have in the living world already high quality of life. To insist that we have more that are not wanted is lunacy and completely not Christlike concerning the topic.
> He followed up with this note which is good and stirred up a lot of thoughts:
Actually his note is Evil, in the sense that it consists of a Satanic inversion of reality.
Let's take his levels one at a time:
1. Tactical anti-establishment. Mr. Raven dismisses these people as motivated by money or power. However, these are the most reasonable people. I consider my self here. I support the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. I'm anti-establishment to the extent the establishment opposes them, and pro-establishment to the extent the establishment supports them.
2. Strategically anti-establishment. Mr. Raven calls these people "the real deal, loyal trustworthy, virtuous, with Roman soldier stoic characteristics". However, these people are far more likely to be motivated by power than type 1's. In any case, these kind of fanatic true believers are liable to betray you over minor differences of vision, or for various tactical considerations.
3. Spiritually anti-establishment. This is the level of Luciferians and Gnostics. Rebellion for the sake of rebellion. These are the people Chesterton described in the quote "The innocent rank and file [anarchists] are disappointed because the bomb has not killed the king; but the high-priesthood are happy because it has killed somebody." Mr. Raven attempts to dragoon several famous people into this category, some of whom were indeed Gnostics, others would be outraged at the position attributed to them.
Wildly oversimplified view of the world.
Thanks for reading and engaging. Any chance that you will unpack those thoughts for us a little?
That was quite pointed in encapsulated the position of reality. Any other verbiage would be ancillary.
“The Lord” is constitutionally barred from any society legislative mandate decisions. Fuck off
The constitution is a contract between the several states in which they give parts of their individual sovereignty to create a new federal government. All that it does is define which parts of their pre-existing powers that they are giving to this 'entity' that they called into existence. Ergo, any powers that the states did not have the federal government cannot have. This is an ancient principle well summed up as, 'No stream can rise higher than its source.'
A contract entered into between parties is not binding on those who are not party to the contract and certainly cannot place limitations or requirements on non-signatories or change the pre-existing laws and rules on which it is based.
I notice that you failed to interact substantively with anything that I said which seems to be your M.O. If you have something worthwhile to say then you are welcome to say it. Otherwise, shit in your own yard sir.
I should be saying that to you. Your nebulous gibberish is completely irrelevant.
This sort of is my yard, that's what the big Comfort with Truth banner means. Welcome to substack if you need anymore tips on how it works I'm happy to help.
If you have anything on topic to say I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I have never used the moderation features but much more OT trolling and I will take them for a spin.
I would love to set you straight on topic abortion.
Prohibition of any kind is draconian. It has a 100% rate of failure and only non-critical thinkers and people with unannounced agendas think otherwise
If you really want to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies, mandate reversible vasectomies.
To think you should have any sway over someone else’s bodily autonomy is so ridiculous and self important, even if it wasn’t terrible idea to panic, you would’ve just qualified yourself from the discussion.
I appreciate your transition to substantive discourse. You've made my day.
Is the prohibition of murdering children draconian, and are all prohibitions of homicide failures and the result of unannounced agendas, or might a prohibition of killing children be a reasonable law made with the intent to save life and be reasonably successful in that end?
I don't want to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy, like everything else in life, happens to us due mainly to forces outside of our control, even when the forces act through our own biology. I don't see this as a problem. I see deadbeat dads as a problem and the societal concept of the disposable dad as a problem.
If you read the post then you know that I was arguing that the form of a thing should match its essence, but perhaps that is too nebulous for you. I never said that abortions should not be performed, but rather that their aesthetics should match their reality, as the sacrifice of an innocent on the altar of the dark god of convenience.
A fetus is a collection of cells. Not a child. Simple experiment will prove my theory and concept. You can freeze a fetus, thawed out and it will continue to do it biological thing. Try freezing a child.
Since the Bible is your life tenant, supposedly, the old testament claims that life begins at birth. The New Testament does not address it.
Your opinion, uneducated and biased should have no sway on national policy. Jesus
Something tells me you’re completely “my body my choice” about vaccinations……. You’re a net negative to the universe. Do better.
New laws, like 'you must take a poorly designed and manufactured gene therapy treatment into your body'always tend to totalitarianism. Old Laws like 'thou shalt not kill' generally tend to freedom.
I am in fact a net negative to the universe, known in more civilized discourse as a Sinner. What's your plan to deal with your self-righteousness? When doing better doesn't work out for you come back and we can talk about it.
Complete hypocrisy. Abortion doesn’t affect anyone else but the patient and her partner. Your freedom stops where mine begins. Not being vaccinated against basic infections and disease is endangering my health and life.
To my knowledge there’s been no “gene therapy”
Vaccine introduced in the United States. Again, you are speaking on subject you obviously know nothing about.
Granted, the vaccination for Covid is not perfect, by a long shot. That said if it was not for the mRNA technology, we would’ve easily lost tens of millions more lives. To create the 2 billion injections needed for initial vaccination and a couple rounds of boosters, it would’ve taken five or six years using the traditional egg culture method. Seriously man, if you’re a theologian, you should stick to theology.
My plan is to continue working on issues and that keep Americans from having a high quality of life. Fossil fuels, industrial complexes in corporate control army main problems in this country currently. Not someone else’s health decisions.
My comment was quite substantial and directly Porten at your statement. The constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion.
Your opinions on the subject are motivated entirely by that very object. Your hypocrisy and blatant stupidity is truly impressive. If you have a topic of expertise, you should stick to that. Political science is not it
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' Does it sound like it means what you think it does?
The constitution's only statement on the subject of religion is to prevent congress from requiring religious observance. Does your pompousness usually impress people or is this the first time you tried to fly that kite?
I stand by my statement. You’re incorrect rhetorical tiddlywinks is offputting.