slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/26/85)
> First, I believe the religion alluded to is the Indian cult of Kali, >a minor religion followed by the Thuggees, who were sort of maniacal dervishes. >(Spielberg's information in "Temple of Doom" is remarkably accurate...). The >cult of Kali was a death-worshipping religion, so skulls and human sacrifices >were in evidence. Most historians believe the accounts concerning these people, >but claim that the cult no longer exists... This is not true. Kali is a representation of the Mother. It is not a "death-worshipping religion", but represents all of life (which happens to include death). May I recommend "Ramakrishna and his Disciples" by Christopher Isherwood--a very interesting book. Her worship is not dead. Spielberg is the LEAST accurate source on India that I can imagine. > Second, I don't know how you go about making the judgement, "obviously >satanist". I am surprised at you. I did not make that judgement. Did you not notice the :-) after the statement? I am a worshiper of Shiva, and Tibetan Buddhism is a special study of mine. I was simply making the observation that if any religion is persecuted, then all are at risk. I do try to put smileys where they are needed. I do not always succeed. If I miss one, you can flame me. But I don't really care to be flamed when I HAVE put them in! -- Sue Brezden ihnp4!drutx!slb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity, location, and musical ability are as yet unknown. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (11/01/85)
bradford wilson writes: > Again, I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding between us. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, too. I'd had quite a few flames dumped in my lap that week and was taking your posting at its worst. Was starting to get defensive and hurt. (I tried to send you mail--but it bounced back. I'm posting this to net.religion and not net.flame, because it's out of the flame stage, I hope.) >These are the same people who disbelieve Satanic cults and witchcraft -- >we both know better than to do this. Well, I don't know. I certainly don't disbelieve witchcraft--in the sense of Wicca, or just plain old magic (magic does work, but not in the way most people think). But the ideas most people have about what witchcraft is are something I don't agree with. And I don't think there really are Satanic cults out there. Satanism is not really a religion, but a subset of Christianity--sort of. It has no logical existance without the existance of Christianity. Someone who worships Satan is probably not the sort to join with anyone else--too chaotic. It's just some poor bozo who can't take Christianity, but who is too uninformed to realize he/she has lots of other options as far as religion goes. Or just some evil person--there are some out there. But as far as organized Satanic groups, no. I have never seen any evidence for Satanic groups that wasn't obviously cooked up by someone out to get Wicca, D&D, or music they don't like. Or wasn't obviously a joke, like the LaVey (spelling?) thing, or something in the National Enquirer. But I could be wrong (as always). -- Sue Brezden ihnp4!drutx!slb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity, location, and musical ability are as yet unknown. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~