thanks for choosing god.





Not formatted yet. :)

From: Wildsong [wildsong@presidentbushviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 12:45 PM
To: cap@capalert.com
Subject: back to school

Hi there
Just some corrections to your site. I'm certain that you won't mind, being an open-minded person.

In your back-to-school special page, you mention a number of symbols and describe them as having satanic meaning. In fact, none of these images has any satan-related value except in the minds of christians looking for evil. I shall illustrate, with references, of course. I note that you do not provide references on your page.

The Anarchy Symbol
The anarchy symbol presently represents freedom from rules. Nothing more, and nothing less. It's commonly found in teenage-targeted angst music, since around the teens people start to feel that there are too many rules and that they would be better off without them. There is no religious connotation here. Rather, it is a way in which records are sold. Your analysis requires massive restructuring of the logo, and after doing so the logo is no longer the anarchy symbol. It's the same as saying that the christian cross is satanic because all you have to do is turn it upside down and it becomes a mockery of christianity. By changing the symbol, you change its meaning. If you're going to play that game, you can redefine anything. This negates your argument. I know whereof I speak. As most intellectuals have a brief flirt with Communism, I had a brief flirt with anarchy, and I researched it. Without redefining it. According to Peter Marshall, an historian, the symbol probably originates with the slogan "Anarchy is Order" which explains the presence of both the A and the O in the symbol.
For further information, please see http://www.cat.org.au/afaq/append2.html#circledA

The Pentacle
The pentacle, though presently a symbol of pagan religions, has been used in the past by christians wishing to represent the star that was supposed to have led the three wise men to the baby jesus. It has also been used to represent the five crucifixion wounds that jesus was supposed to have received. christians later associated the pentacle with satan, and inverted it because they believed that it looked like a goat's head. However, the pentacle pre-dates christianity.
You can find information here: http://www.spiral.org.uk/pentagram.htm

The Star Of David
The Star of David, or Hexagram, has a number of meanings, but you are quite mistaken about the "putting a hex" aspect. In fact, this comes from the German word "hexe" or "hexen" which means "to practice witchcraft."
Further information about the Star Of David is available here:
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/12.htm
http://www.euronet.nl/users/pi_alfa/david1e.htm
Further information about the word "hex" is available here:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=hex

The Ankh
In fact, the Ankh is not a mockery of anything, and is rather a symbol of life, fertility, reincarnation, and the union of heaven and earth, among other things. In hieroglyphic writing, it means "life" or "living" and is used when writing the words "health" and "happiness." It predates christianity.
references:
Christian resource centre: http://www.nisbett.com/symbols/ankh.htm
http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/9q&a7.html

The Swastika
The swastika actually goes back further than most written symbols, and is certainly far older than the christian cross. This therefore invalidates the argument that it is a christian cross "bent out of shape." The oldest known swastika is at least 10 000 years old. christianity is only just over 2000 years old. Correcting your claim, the fylfot is quite different from the swastika. On that note, I notice that all references to the fylfot meaning "obedience" and "submission" come from the same source, using the same wording. However, this source was not a scholar, nor an authority on the subject. Reputable researchers have not made this claim. I find it odd that in your description of the swastika, you mentioned that it was used as a "religious" symbol, putting religious in quotes. This suggests that you do not believe that the swastika had religious significance. Religion is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. "Religious" does not indicate the correctness of one set of beliefs over another, and therefore, even given your beliefs, your attitude toward the religious significance of the swastika makes little sense. It should be noted that the swastika was a christian symbol for a very long time.

fylfot: http://www.christchurchcathedral.co.nz/tour/fylfot_mural.htm
fylfot: http://thecoracle.tripod.com/vol01/09/v109137.html

swastika: http://www.locksley.com/6696/swastick.htm
swastika: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/swas.html

666
This number has no significance outside the christian bible. Therefore, occurrences of this number are not significant to non-christians. It should be noted that 666 appears frequently on license plates.

Tau Cross
Here, once again, you are quite mistaken. The Tau cross is a more accurate representation of a crucifixion cross than is the ornament with which christians decorate themselves today. Why, after all, add that unnecessary top piece? Certainly not to keep the dying person comfortable. (reference: http://www.shrinesf.org/francis10.htm)
Further, in spite of your claim that tau represents death, it is actually an ancient symbol that represents eternal life. (reference: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/tau_cross.html)
I think it therefore safe to say that it is not a satanic image. You mention, in your description:
"Jesus, the Son (phonetically "sun") of God"
Surely you realise that this only applies to spoken English, and that English wasn't spoken at that time. Your conclusion is therefore irrelevant.
further references:
Capuchin Franciscan Friars of Australia: http://www.capuchinfriars.org.au/tauex.htm
Anglican orders and communities: http://orders.anglican.org/tssf/tau.htm
Poor Clares: http://www.poorclaresmt.org/Harvest%20Reflections/June%202001.htm

Further corrections: Mithras was not an angel of light, for there was no such concept among the Mithraic followers. Rather, Mithraic religion was a sun-worshipping cult, as were many other early religions, in whose stories Mithras eventually killed the bull of creation, thereby symbolising the victory of good over evil and death. It should be noted that christianity also involved sacrifice of a bull. To the Mithraic followers, the Tau Cross represented the uniting of opposites. It should be further noted that Mithraic belief, which predates christianity, celebrated 25 December as the day of Mithras's birth.
The Christian cult began around 6 BCE, the Mithraic cult in 1400 BCE.

Mithras: http://web.org.uk/picasso/mithras.html
christianity: http://www.history-of-christianity.com/
http://www.sikh-uni.ac.uk/01/lectures/found/lect_6.htm


Unicorn's horn or leprechaun staff
The graphic you show there appears to be a chilli pepper keyring. The only reference I can find to "unicorn horn" in conjunction with "leprechaun staff" is on sites written by people who, like you, seem to believe that it has some satanic influence. Such people, frankly speaking, clearly have no idea what they're talking about. It should be noted that Druids did not believe in satan. Again, the only references I can find to druids castrating animals is on religious sites that denounce them as monsters. Historically accurate sites and books make no such references. It should be further noted that druids celebrated fertility. Castration, therefore, makes no sense at all. One begins to question your sources for these "facts" that you have posted on your site.
(note the use of quotes.)


The Evil Eye
Once again, you are completely wrong. The pyramid/eye combination, according to the US treasury, "The eye and the pyramid shown on the reverse side of the one-dollar bill are in the Great Seal of the United States. The Great Seal was first used on the reverse of the one-dollar Federal Reserve note in 1935. The Department of State is the official keeper of the Seal. They believe that the most accurate explanation of a pyramid on the Great Seal is that it symbolizes strength and durability. The unfinished pyramid means that the United States will always grow, improve and build. In addition, the "All-Seeing Eye" located above the pyramid suggests the importance of divine guidance in favor of the American cause. The inscription ANNUIT COEPTIS translates as "He (God) has favored our undertakings," and refers to the many instances of Divine Providence during our Government's formation. In addition, the inscription NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM translates as "A new order of the ages," and signifies a new American era."
That seems a more plausible explanation than your own, don't you think?
reference: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/portraits.html#q3


The Southern Cross
The southern Cross is the name of a constellation that appears on Australia's flag. It is also the name of the X that appears on the american confederate battle flag. The upside down cross is a catholic image. You can see it here: http://www.cephasministry.com/catholic_upside_down_cross.html
Supposedly, St. Peter was crucified upside down. Stipulating his existence, of course.


Signs of the zodiac
The stars have been studied and worshipped for ages in many different religions, but it should be mentioned here that most astrologers either don't believe in jesus/satan, or are dedicated followers of jesus rather than satan. Ignorance of the true nature of astrology is common for christians, though, who denounce it as satanism. Astrology is yet another system of beliefs that predates christianity, and therefore the christian priests were required, in the 10th century, to study the subject at university. There is evidence to suggest that there is some merit to astrology, though not for the reasons that the practitioners believe. Far from being the stars, the theory relates to the Earth's position relative to the sun. While astrology cannot predict your future, there can be no doubt that people of the same astrological sign tend to share physical and personality traits to a higher degree than people of differing signs. For example, Taurus males do tend, on average, to be bigger, stockier, and stronger than males of other astrological signs. Again, there's no likelihood that the stars have any impact on this, but perhaps the seasonal conditions to which the mother is exposed while the foetus develops is responsible. The subject bears further study. But it's not related to satanism.
http://starcats.com/anima/garth.html
http://www.astro-noetics.com/faq_17.html


Goathead
Yet again, you are mistaken. satanic value was only assigned to the goat by the christians. The use of the goat image as a symbol of fertility predates christianity, and in fact appears in ancient Greek religion with Pan, god of the forest and of fertility. This is because goats become very, very active when they become sexually mature. It just makes sense that they would become the symbol for fertility, given how fertile they are. The worship of a goat-based god, of course, did not sit well with the christians who were trying to stamp out the older religions, so they adopted the image of Pan and called him the devil, satan, etc. Since then, the satanists have adopted the concept, but the image that you show, that of the goat and candle, is a pagan icon, not a satanic one. Don't mistake the two.. pagan religions predate christianity, so there is no satan in pagan religion.
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/legend01/goat.htm
http://www.goatweb.com/discover/goats/myths.shtml


The Peace Symbol or broken cross
You said: "Envision the Cross of Jesus: a vertically oriented lower case "t" without the serif (curve) at the bottom -- an upright beam (the stipes) with a cross-arm (or patibulum). Now invert the Cross then break the patibulum down on both sides. Now, the Cross is head down, the patibulum broken with both halves pointing downward, all away from God and toward Hell. Now you have the heart of the peace symbol, or a close variation of the Greek letter, lambda. How our culture associated the Greek letter lambda as a symbol of peace, I have no idea. The peace sign has even become know as the "devil's claw." In 1970, the Earth Day movement used the peace sign with a U.S. flag."

Cute. Absolutely wrong, of course, but cute. In fact, the peace symbol is was created by Gerald Holtom in 1958 for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's Aldermaston Easter Peace Walk in England, and is composed of the semaphore letters ND for Nuclear Disarmament. It had no religious value whatsoever until Christian CND modified the design to more resemble a christian cross. The Greek letter Lambda has nothing whatever to do with the peace sign, and looks nothing like it. (ref. http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210200/ancient_greece/greek_alphabet.htm) http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~lcush/PeaceSymbolArticle.htm
http://www.peaceday.org/pcsign.htm
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pea-cnd.html


Abracadabra
Wow, you really are stretching here, aren't you?
"especially when the term is oriented atop itself with one letter removed in progression as shown."
You get an inverted triangle, commonly the elemental sign for water. This is satanic how, exactly? What makes you think that anyone would do this, anyway. Hey, hang on a sec:


An inverted triangle. christianity must be satanic, huh? It's the same argument.

Yin/yang
This "doo-hickey" as you call it, represents balance. Nothing more, nothing less. More harmonious than opposing forces. It's based upon the principle that everything has two sides.. day/night, male/female, and so on. Along those lines, it should be mentioned that a principle of physics is "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," which also reflects the principle of balance. The small portion of one in the other represents the presence of each in the other. Your illustration is incorrect.. there should be a small black dot in the white, not a circle. Also, you state that "This emblem is used heavily by students and practitioners of the martial "arts" such as karate and other "self-defense" disciplines from the far east. It's origin is Chinese."
Again, you use quotes to surround "self-defense." Do you, then, not believe that the martial arts can be used for self defence? Do you feel that deflecting an incoming blow so that you are not hurt does not constitute defence of the self? Also, your use of quotes when assigned to the word "art" makes no sense. Gung fu, for example, is most definitely an art. The only way you could suspect otherwise is if you have not seen a gung fu practitioner flowing through a form as a dancer might move through a ballet routine. Not that I expect that you have ever watched the ballet. I suspect that your exposure to the martial arts comes exclusively from movies. You would do well to broaden your horizons. Oh, and it should be noted that Jackie Chan practices gung fu, not karate. The two arts are very different. Your review of Rush Hour makes this mistake.

"The symbol is also used by some to make a sexual statement of "69" which I will not discuss any further."
No, it's really not. Yin/Yang has, aside from issues of sexual balance, energy, and so on, no sexual significance in today's society. You are, once again, quite mistaken. However, because the Arabic characters that make up the number 69 do resemble the Yin/Yang, they are sometimes used to represent it. No sexual connotation.
http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm

The scarab
You say: '"Atum, shown as a ram-headed man." Ram-headed man, huh. Sounds a lot like the goatheaded. So, here is a link between the scarab beetle as an adornment to Satanism.'
Again, Egyptian beliefs predate christianity. There was no satan when the Egyptians were worshipping their Atum. Further, the scarab represents life from death, with dung being death and the young dung beetles who hatch from it being seen to represent life. I always thought that it was a rather nice idea, since it shows that in nature, nothing is wasted. Further, a ram is a male sheep, not a goat, and sheep are revered in christianity. A male goat is called a buck. Your argument, tenuous at best, collapses. http://www.tracker-outdoors.com/goats.htm


Satanic or Broken "S"
You said "More of Nazi Germany. This is the symbol worn by the murderous Secret Service of Nazi Germany."
Wrong again. This rune represents the sun and victory, and was assigned to the Waffen-Schutzstaffel, which was not a secret service. Remember that the people who wore the rune spoke German, not English. The German word for secret is Geheimnis. Geheimnis doesn't start with an S. Schutzstaffel is where the SS rune came in, and it means literally protection squadron, not secret service.
reference: http://axis101.bizland.com/CollarTabs02.htm

You also said: "In Greek mythology, this symbol represents a thunderbolt (destruction) from Zeus, another false god. The broken "s" represents the bearer having power over others."
Nope. The SS rune (called sig) is associated with Thor, so this was Himmler basing his SS around Thor, not Zeus. But Zeus used thunderbolts, too, though this had nothing to do with the Germans. The rune that you describe is not a broken S, but rather two S's side by side. It has nothing to do with power over others. http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/new-age/NA1201W4.htm


Satanic Cross
"The holy Cross with an upside down question mark attached to the bottom. The question mark is to state to observers that they should question Jesus: his Work, Will, and Way. Many contemporary rock groups flaunt the satanic cross as well as other satanic notions."
Not even close. The symbol in question represents Cronos, or Saturn. It has a hook on the bottom because Saturn was the Roman god of agriculture, and that represents a sickle. http://www.astrologycorner.com/planets.shtml (It's an astrology site, but it shows the symbol in the proper context)
It has no religious significance today except in archaeology.

The symbol was adopted and slightly modified by the band Blue Oyster Cult because it looked spooky. It has not been used by any other bands.
http://www.graceandfury.com/feature_boc.htm
http://www.writer2001.com/boars.htm

Udjat or All-Seeing Eye
You said: "As an amulet, variations of the udjat are used for wisdom, protection, good health, prosperity, clairvoyant powers, and protection from the evil eye."
Nope. "It is the symbol of the protective power of Netjer in Its Names of Heru (Horus), Ra or Shu, or in feminine aspect, Het-Hert (Hathor), Bast or Sekhmet. In the most ancient Kemetic texts, the Sacred Eyes (two) are sometimes equated with the sun and moon, and are said to be the first emanations of the Creator." -http://www.kemet.org/ntjr/udjat2.html It is used to represent rebirth in the underworld, as well.

Your conclusion that the Eye of Horus, or the Udjat, is related to satan is baseless. The first mention of Osiris appears in the Egyptian 4th dynasty, which ended in 2465 BCE. This means that Osiris predates the concept of satan by well over two thousand years.


Star and Crescent [of Islam]
"With God mockingly placed as the moon (the goddess of love, Dianna), Satan assumes the role of the star, which is a mockery of Jesus as the ...bright and morning star...:"
As usual, way off. "The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. Information on the origins of the symbol are difficult to ascertain, but most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods. There are also reports that the crescent moon and star were used to represent the Carthaginian goddess Tanit or the Greek goddess Diana."
Since Islam was founded in 610 AD, this means that the crescent and star predate christianity by several thousand years less six hundred and ten. This means that satan had not yet been invented when the symbol was in use. The symbol is not inherently Islamic, either.

Diana is not the goddess of love, she is the Roman goddess of the moon and of the hunt. Artemis is the name of the original Greek version. Aphrodite/Venus is the goddess of love. Most school children know this by age eleven.

Star and crescent: http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm
Diana/Artemis: http://waltm.net/diana.htm


Horned Hand
This was a simple gesture of protection until demonised by the christians. It was adopted by the death-metal bands of the 80s, because of the significance that the christians assigned to it, as a form of rebellion by the angry youth types. If you do it now, though, people just look at you funny. It's past tense everywhere except Italy, where it is frequently used by Catholics. Not really satanic, then.

Here end the corrections for your page. Whether you continue to display the current, completely wrong information is up to you. I'll be interested to note whether you can admit to your errors, though, or whether the open-mindedness you preach is all talk.

cheerful regards,
-wildsong

http://www.violently-happy.net
From: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 1:48 PM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: back to school

On 10/26/02 2:45 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:

> Hi there
> Just some corrections to your site. I'm certain that you won't mind, being
> an open-minded person.
>
> In your back-to-school special page, you mention a number of symbols and
> describe them as having satanic meaning.

Or occultic. If you are going to take only pieces and parts of the discussions, your argument is invalid.


> In fact, none of these images has
> any satan-related value except in the minds of christians looking for evil.

And those who use them for evil.


> I shall illustrate, with references, of course. I note that you do not
> provide references on your page.

Then read it again.


> The Anarchy Symbol
> The anarchy symbol presently represents freedom from rules. Nothing more,
> and nothing less.

As I said - anarchy.


> It's commonly found in teenage-targeted angst music, since
> around the teens people start to feel that there are too many rules and that
> they would be better off without them. There is no religious connotation
> here.

Yes, there is. That you cannot see it does not mean it is not there.


> Rather, it is a way in which records are sold. Your analysis requires
> massive restructuring of the logo, and after doing so the logo is no longer
> the anarchy symbol.

Your limited application of the symbol defines your argument as one-dimensional. Records are not the only way the symbol is used.


> It's the same as saying that the christian cross is
> satanic because all you have to do is turn it upside down and it becomes a
> mockery of christianity.

It does.


> By changing the symbol, you change its meaning. If
> you're going to play that game, you can redefine anything. This negates your
> argument.

By whose standards?


> I know whereof I speak.

So do I.


> As most intellectuals have a brief flirt
> with Communism, I had a brief flirt with anarchy, and I researched it.

And embraced it?


> Without redefining it. According to Peter Marshall, an historian, the symbol
> probably originates with the slogan "Anarchy is Order" which explains the
> presence of both the A and the O in the symbol.
> For further information, please see
> http://www.cat.org.au/afaq/append2.html#circledA

"Anarchy is Order" is the most lame leap for freedom from accountability I have ever heard. Anarchy is disorder from lack of consistency and rules.


> The Pentacle
> The pentacle, though presently a symbol of pagan religions,

Which ends this soliloquy of your diatribe.


> has been used in
> the past by christians wishing to represent the star that was supposed to
> have led the three wise men to the baby jesus. It has also been used to
> represent the five crucifixion wounds that jesus was supposed to have
> received. christians later associated the pentacle with satan, and inverted
> it because they believed that it looked like a goat's head. However, the
> pentacle pre-dates christianity.
> You can find information here: http://www.spiral.org.uk/pentagram.htm

No it doesn't. Jesus was with God from the Beginning. John 1:1.


> The Star Of David
> The Star of David, or Hexagram, has a number of meanings, but you are quite
> mistaken about the "putting a hex" aspect. In fact, this comes from the
> German word "hexe" or "hexen" which means "to practice witchcraft."
> Further information about the Star Of David is available here:
> http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/12.htm
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/pi_alfa/david1e.htm
> Further information about the word "hex" is available here:
> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=hex

Hexa-gram. Hexa meaning six. That it is attached to "hex" is a matter of convenient coincidence. That the hexagram has six sides has nothing to do with its use by evil organizations/purposes.


> The Ankh
> In fact, the Ankh is not a mockery of anything, and is rather a symbol of
> life, fertility, reincarnation, and the union of heaven and earth, among
> other things. In hieroglyphic writing, it means "life" or "living" and is
> used when writing the words "health" and "happiness." It predates
> christianity.

No, it doesn't. Christ was here at the beginning.


> references:
> Christian resource centre: http://www.nisbett.com/symbols/ankh.htm
> http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/9q&a7.html
>
>
> The Swastika
> The swastika actually goes back further than most written symbols, and is
> certainly far older than the christian cross. This therefore invalidates the
> argument that it is a christian cross "bent out of shape."

No, it doesn't. that it was used for other meanings before Jesus walked the Earth is nonsequitur.


> The oldest known
> swastika is at least 10 000 years old. christianity is only just over 2000
> years old. Correcting your claim, the fylfot is quite different from the
> swastika. On that note, I notice that all references to the fylfot meaning
> "obedience" and "submission" come from the same source, using the same
> wording. However, this source was not a scholar, nor an authority on the
> subject.

Which does not make him wrong. Or you right.


> Reputable researchers have not made this claim. I find it odd that
> in your description of the swastika, you mentioned that it was used as a
> "religious" symbol, putting religious in quotes. This suggests that you do
> not believe that the swastika had religious significance.

No, it means I question any association of that "religion" to God.


> Religion is the
> belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Which makes faith in Jesus not a religion.


> "Religious" does not
> indicate the correctness of one set of beliefs over another,

God does.


> and therefore,
> even given your beliefs, your attitude toward the religious significance of
> the swastika makes little sense.

Again, by whose standards?


> It should be noted that the swastika was a
> christian symbol for a very long time.

Which does not defeat or negate its use for evil.


> fylfot: http://www.christchurchcathedral.co.nz/tour/fylfot_mural.htm
> fylfot: http://thecoracle.tripod.com/vol01/09/v109137.html
>
> swastika: http://www.locksley.com/6696/swastick.htm
> swastika: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/swas.html
>
>
>
> 666
> This number has no significance outside the christian bible.

Which gives it all the significance needed to indicate it is evil.


> Therefore,
> occurrences of this number are not significant to non-christians.

You made a point you don't even understand. That it is not significant to non-Christians does not negates its eternal significance. Indeed, they who use it for evil are non-Christians.


> It should
> be noted that 666 appears frequently on license plates.

...and street addresses, social security numbers, math tables.......


>
> Tau Cross
> Here, once again, you are quite mistaken.

Again, by whose standards?


> The Tau cross is a more accurate
> representation of a crucifixion cross than is the ornament with which
> christians decorate themselves today. Why, after all, add that unnecessary
> top piece? Certainly not to keep the dying person comfortable. (reference:
> http://www.shrinesf.org/francis10.htm)

Where would the placard "King of the Jews" been placed if the tau were the true cross?


> Further, in spite of your claim that tau represents death, it is actually an
> ancient symbol that represents eternal life. (reference:
> http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/tau_cross.html)
> I think it therefore safe to say that it is not a satanic image.

Again, that some use symbols for other meanings does not negate the use of them by evil people for evil meanings.


> You
> mention, in your description:
>
"Jesus, the Son (phonetically "sun") of God"
> Surely you realise that this only applies to spoken English, and that
> English wasn't spoken at that time. Your conclusion is therefore irrelevant.

I am talking about the use of these symbols today, son. *You* are the one trying, vainly I might add, to find ammunition against my revealing the truth about them.


> further references:
> Capuchin Franciscan Friars of Australia:
> http://www.capuchinfriars.org.au/tauex.htm
> Anglican orders and communities: http://orders.anglican.org/tssf/tau.htm
> Poor Clares:
> http://www.poorclaresmt.org/Harvest%20Reflections/June%202001.htm
>
> Further corrections: Mithras was not an angel of light, for there was no
> such concept among the Mithraic followers.

Keep researching.


> Rather, Mithraic religion was a
> sun-worshipping cult, as were many other early religions, in whose stories
> Mithras eventually killed the bull of creation, thereby symbolising the
> victory of good over evil and death. It should be noted that christianity
> also involved sacrifice of a bull.

And a lamb. And a goat. And a ....... Next!


> To the Mithraic followers, the Tau Cross
> represented the uniting of opposites. It should be further noted that
> Mithraic belief, which predates christianity, celebrated 25 December as the
> day of Mithras's birth.
> The Christian cult began around 6 BCE, the Mithraic cult in 1400 BCE.

The Christian faith began when Jesus was teaching the Truth to mortals. From about 33 BC to 0 BC/AD. To argue that the mythic Mithraic cult was in existence 1400 BC, before Christ's ministry, is empty and vain. If it existed at all, that it existed before Jesus walked the Earth does not mean it was before Christ who was with us at the Beginning.


>
> Mithras: http://web.org.uk/picasso/mithras.html
> christianity:
> http://www.history-of-christianity.com/
> http://www.sikh-uni.ac.uk/01/lectures/found/lect_6.htm
>
>
>
> Unicorn's horn or leprechaun staff
> The graphic you show there appears to be a chilli pepper keyring. The only
> reference I can find to "unicorn horn" in conjunction with "leprechaun
> staff" is on sites written by people who, like you, seem to believe that it
> has some satanic influence. Such people, frankly speaking, clearly have no
> idea what they're talking about.

Which is what I was thinking about you. Frankly.

I simply do not have the time to keep sinking your argument. There are many who want and deserve a piece of my time as much as you. This is over.

From: Wildsong [wildsong@presidentbushviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 2:40 PM
To: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry
Subject: RE: back to school

:: On 10/26/02 2:45 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:

Funny, I could have sworn that I wrote the things you quoted.


:: > In your back-to-school special page, you mention a number of
:: symbols and
:: > describe them as having satanic meaning.
::
:: Or occultic.

On a regular basis, you make the claim that they are the same thing.
("Occultic" isn't a word, Tommy.)


:: If you are going to take only pieces and parts of the
:: discussions, your argument is invalid.

I see. So by taking only parts of a discussion, I would change what you meant. That's kind of like redefining a symbol, don't you think?
I notice that you skipped a number of the points I made in my original message. What does this say about your argument, then?


:: > In fact, none of these images has
:: > any satan-related value except in the minds of christians
:: looking for evil.
::
:: And those who use them for evil.

The christian definition is not absolute, it is subject to the christian point of view. Those who do not share that point of view will not share that morality. christianity is not morality, it contains a morality. Even being christian, I'm sure that you can see that. Your morality is not the same as, say, a follower of Islam. I'm not saying that either is correct. Just that they are different.


:: > I shall illustrate, with references, of course. I note that you do not
:: > provide references on your page.
::
:: Then read it again.

I have done so. All you provide is christian biblical scripture to support your claims. This is not evidence, since it is not impartial. Therefore, it is invalid. You do not use any objective resources to prove the points that you attempt to make. This is because there aren't any. If you do find some, it would enhance your credibility a great deal if you listed them. As it is, your conclusions are incorrect and your evidence is, even in the cases where you actually think you have any, biased.


:: > The Anarchy Symbol
:: > The anarchy symbol presently represents freedom from rules.
:: Nothing more,
:: > and nothing less.
::
:: As I said - anarchy.

No, you silly head, you said that it was a denial of your god because you thought it incorporated a no-smoking type sign with an alpha and omega. It doesn't, and the symbol very much predates the no-smoking sign, so your argument is completely invalid. You should really be a little more familiar with the content of your own pages, don't you think?


:: > they would be better off without them. There is no religious
:: connotation
:: > here.
::
:: Yes, there is. That you cannot see it does not mean it is not there.

Don't be silly. You're looking for religion where there isn't any. The earliest evidence of this symbol is on the back of the helmet of a Spanish soldier. Few people are as biblically religious as they. You should do some research before making ridiculous claims. They make you look even more silly.


:: > Rather, it is a way in which records are sold. Your analysis requires
:: > massive restructuring of the logo, and after doing so the logo
:: is no longer
:: > the anarchy symbol.
::
:: Your limited application of the symbol defines your argument as
:: one-dimensional. Records are not the only way the symbol is used.

You completely missed the point. But then, that's not surprising. The point was that you mention that the symbol is found in music a lot. The symbol is found in music because the anarchy concept that it represents appeals to teenagers. In order to sell that music, you must appeal to your target audience. They aren't using it because it's satanic or anti-christian. They are using it because teenagers will buy something that appeals. It's not complicated.


:: > It's the same as saying that the christian cross is
:: > satanic because all you have to do is turn it upside down and
:: it becomes a
:: > mockery of christianity.
::
:: It does.

Tommy misses the point again. The christian cross is not satanic, is it? Even if all you have to do is invert it to make it anti-christian. And inverting it is a lot less of a modification than you propose for the anarchy symbol. Do you understand now? If you modify a symbol, you change its meaning. You can't judge a symbol based upon that modified meaning because you are responsible for the new meaning. Keep in mind that there are crosses all over that site of yours. They're just one step away from being inverted. Does that make you a satanist?
I could have sworn I explained this before.


:: > By changing the symbol, you change its meaning. If
:: > you're going to play that game, you can redefine anything.
:: This negates your
:: > argument.
::
:: By whose standards?

What is that supposed to mean? If you change a symbol, you change what it means. This is not subjective, so no one's standards are involved. If my symbol is a vertical rectangle, and someone turns it on its side, it is no longer my symbol, and no longer means what I use it to mean. To ascribe a new meaning to that symbol and then accuse me of using it to mean that is stupid. This is not a complicated concept, but I shall explain further so that you understand. I notice that the christian crucifix appears on your site a lot. Since all you have to do is invert it to make it satanic, in your view, does that make you and your site satanic? The principle is exactly the same. By changing the symbol, you change its meaning. The intent of the user of the original symbol cannot be carried to the new symbol, since it was not that user who changed it to mean what you did.


:: > As most intellectuals have a brief flirt
:: > with Communism, I had a brief flirt with anarchy, and I researched it.
::
:: And embraced it?

No, Tommy. As I said, I had a brief flirt with anarchy. Do you know what brief means? Do you know what flirt means? The concept of anarchy doesn't work at all. It's an interesting premise, but in a realistic environment it would not lead to the survival of the human species. Creatures that exist together are more successful. Ants, for example, are the most successful creatures on Earth. But in order to exist in a group, however large, rules are required. All social creatures have rules. To think that humans could survive in groups without rules is silly.


:: "Anarchy is Order" is the most lame leap for freedom from
:: accountability I
:: have ever heard. Anarchy is disorder from lack of consistency and rules.

You actually got that one right. But I didn't say it made sense, only that that was the origin of the symbol. Whether you agree with the meaning of a symbol or not doesn't mean that you change the story of its origin. In this case, silly as the concept may be, that is the reason for the origin of the symbol.


:: > The pentacle, though presently a symbol of pagan religions,
::
:: Which ends this soliloquy of your diatribe.

This makes even less sense than you usually do. I'm speaking (well, typing) to you, not to myself. If you're going to use a word, I suggest that you look it up first, Tommy.
As to the point that I'm sure you think you made, it should be pointed out that pagan religions are older than christianity, and therefore cannot possibly be based upon the christian satan figure. I should also point out that pagan religions do not have a satan figure. Each person is responsible for what he or she does. That makes them more accountable than christians who blame the devil for their shortcomings.


:: However, the
:: > pentacle pre-dates christianity.
:: > You can find information here: http://www.spiral.org.uk/pentagram.htm
::
:: No it doesn't. Jesus was with God from the Beginning. John 1:1.

Do you genuinely not understand this concept? Suppose that jesus existed at the time the christian bible says. He was not around when the various non-christian religions that used this symbol were in widespread use. And the christian bible wasn't written until some time after that. So no matter what the christian bible says, it cannot apply to religions that existed before it did. Again, whether you believe the bible or not, the people who founded and followed the pagan religions had never heard of it, in most cases, and did not therefore have any concept of satan. And as such, the symbol cannot be satanic. If you don't understand that, I can't really explain it any further. I'm using small words as it is.


:: Hexa-gram. Hexa meaning six. That it is attached to "hex" is a
:: matter of
:: convenient coincidence. That the hexagram has six sides has
:: nothing to do
:: with its use by evil organizations/purposes.

And you think that makes more sense, do you? That the symbol would be related to a devil in which, again, the creators of the symbol did not believe.
Hexa means six _in_English_. The symbol was not created by English speaking people, nor was it created by German speaking people. The use of the word "hex" originated with German speaking people in Pennsylvania. I thought I explained that. Therefore, you are applying a word from German to a word from English, just because it happens to sound the same, and then applying the combination to a symbol created in Hebrew with no knowledge of either. That makes no sense at all. The Star Of David has not been associated with such things except by you, and other religious fanatics. Again, do some research.


:: > used when writing the words "health" and "happiness." It predates
:: > christianity.
::
:: No, it doesn't. Christ was here at the beginning.

Covered that above. Besides, you're getting that concept from the christian bible, and taking it as fact. The christian bible is not impartial, and is therefore not useful as evidence.


:: > certainly far older than the christian cross. This therefore
:: invalidates the
:: > argument that it is a christian cross "bent out of shape."
::
:: No, it doesn't. that it was used for other meanings before
:: Jesus walked the
:: Earth is nonsequitur.

Again, using words that you don't understand. Non sequitur means that it doesn't follow from the evidence presented, or that it is an illogical conclusion. Like, for example, claiming that the swastika is a mockery of something that didn't exist when the swastika was created. That would be non sequitur. Do you understand? The swastika was in use before the Roman Empire existed, and the Roman Empire was in existence before people were crucified. Therefore, the swastika was in use before people were crucified. The christian cross is a representation of what they think the crucifix looked like (though there is debate) and so the swastika cannot possibly be a mockery of that cross. The reasoning is not too hard to follow, is it?


:: > swastika. On that note, I notice that all references to the
:: fylfot meaning
:: > "obedience" and "submission" come from the same source, using the same
:: > wording. However, this source was not a scholar, nor an
:: authority on the
:: > subject.
::
:: Which does not make him wrong. Or you right.

No, but only one person makes that claim, and hundreds of scholars who _are_ authorities on the subject make claims to the contrary. So if one person says that the sky is always green, and hundreds of others say that it is usually blue, who do you think is more likely to be mistaken?


:: > "religious" symbol, putting religious in quotes. This suggests
:: that you do
:: > not believe that the swastika had religious significance.
::
:: No, it means I question any association of that "religion" to God.

'Religion' does not mean 'belief in the christian god figure.' Look it up. Therefore, the religion is a religion because people believe it. That you don't agree with their beliefs does not change the meaning of the word.


:: > Religion is the
:: > belief in something for which there is no evidence.
::
:: Which makes faith in Jesus not a religion.

Time and again I have asked you to provide evidence. You have yet to do so. If there is evidence, you seem to have a lot of difficulty locating it. Until such time as evidence has been presented, it must be assumed that there is none.


:: > "Religious" does not
:: > indicate the correctness of one set of beliefs over another,
::
:: God does.

Many religions do not recognise your god. Many say the same about your god as your religion says about theirs. What makes you so sure, then, that your god is the right one? Keep in mind that there are fanatics in other religions, too, who believe just as strongly that practitioners of other religions are evil. Are you wrong because you don't believe in Allah? Vishnu?


:: > and therefore,
:: > even given your beliefs, your attitude toward the religious
:: significance of
:: > the swastika makes little sense.
::
:: Again, by whose standards?

It's a concept with which you may be familiar. I like to call it logic. Words are defined. You cannot change their meaning to suit your needs. That's the whole point of language. Words are common ground. Therefore, you are applying a word meaning 'a system of beliefs without evidence' to a religious icon with which you do not agree, and therefore believe to be a system of beliefs without evidence. And yet you are denying that the symbol is religious. Your only basis for denying that the symbol is religious is your redefinition of the word religious. Let my put it another way. If you redefine 3 to equal 5, and then claim that 3+3=10, most people will laugh at you. This is because 3 is universally used to mean 3, not 5. You cannot just redefine it to suite yourself. Does that make it easier to understand?


:: > It should be noted that the swastika was a
:: > christian symbol for a very long time.
::
:: Which does not defeat or negate its use for evil.

It means that people closer to the origin of your religion did not see it as evil. If they were mistaken, might not you be?


:: > 666
:: > This number has no significance outside the christian bible.
::
:: Which gives it all the significance needed to indicate it is evil.


I see. How many times were you mentioned in the bible, Tommy?


:: You made a point you don't even understand. That it is not
:: significant to
:: non-Christians does not negates its eternal significance.
:: Indeed, they who
:: use it for evil are non-Christians.

Do try to keep up. That it has no significance to non-christians means that they won't use it because it has no meaning. I am a non-christian. The number 666 holds no significance for me. So if I wear or own something with the number 666 on it, that's not a sign that I'm a satanist. It's a sign that I have no aversion to the number because it holds no meaning. Just as I would have no problem owning or wearing something with the number 13 on it, because I am not superstitious. To therefore warn parents to keep an eye open for things with 666 on them is just silly since, as I said, there are lots of things bearing that number.


:: > It should
:: > be noted that 666 appears frequently on license plates.
::
:: ...and street addresses, social security numbers, math tables.......

Precisely. This means that it is not evil to most people, it is just a sequence of numbers. Aside from the christians, no one cares. 666 is no different from 5 or 37 or 192, or any other number.


:: > Tau Cross
:: > Here, once again, you are quite mistaken.
::
:: Again, by whose standards?

Look it up. Your conclusions are not supported by any authority in the field.


:: Where would the placard "King of the Jews" been placed if the
:: tau were the
:: true cross?

Right. So you think that every crucifix was designed that way, even before jesus was supposed to have been born, so that they could put that little placard above and behind his head where no one could see it. Because keep in mind that when you were crucified, you were higher than a person standing on the ground. Wouldn't it make more sense to put it at his feet? Your reasoning defies description. You have the b-movie of arguments here.


:: > Further, in spite of your claim that tau represents death, it
:: is actually an
:: > ancient symbol that represents eternal life. (reference:
:: > http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/tau_cross.html)
:: > I think it therefore safe to say that it is not a satanic image.
::
:: Again, that some use symbols for other meanings does not negate
:: the use of
:: them by evil people for evil meanings.

I see. So you are absolutely right all of the time, and people in the field that has been studying the symbol for over a century are wrong. That's what you're saying here. Even though the bible is the source of all of your knowledge in this field, and it never mentions this symbol. And you think that you know better than St. Francis? You do presume, don't you?


:: > You
:: > mention, in your description:
:: > "Jesus, the Son (phonetically "sun") of God"
:: > Surely you realise that this only applies to spoken English, and that
:: > English wasn't spoken at that time. Your conclusion is
:: therefore irrelevant.
::
:: I am talking about the use of these symbols today, son. *You*

I see. And when was the last time you encountered a Mithraic cult member? So what significance could the way they used a symbol thousands of years ago have to today's world, other than archaeologically? Again, I shall explain. the Mithraic cultists did not use the English word 'sun.' The christian bible was not written in English, and therefore did not use the English word 'son.' Therefore, translating both into English and then pointing out that they sound the same is pointless. Your conclusion remains irrelevant.


:: are the one
:: trying, vainly I might add, to find ammunition against my revealing the
:: truth about them.

Actually, I have quoted reference after reference (which you can confirm), presented logical explanations of your blatant errors of reasoning, and provided historical facts regarding the origins and uses of these symbols. You have made unsubstantiated claims based upon your single source of reference, which is a very biased religious text. I suggest that you reread your page and my original message. Reading it a second time might help you understand it.

:: > Further corrections: Mithras was not an angel of light, for there was no
:: > such concept among the Mithraic followers.
::
:: Keep researching.


Of course, you fail to substantiate your claim that there was. This makes your point invalid. I have provided links to sites that describe the religion, and Mithras particularly. If you actually read them you might become more familiar with the subject, and not sound quite so ignorant. Alternatively, just provide the evidence to support your claim, thereby correcting me.


:: > Rather, Mithraic religion was a
:: > sun-worshipping cult, as were many other early religions, in whose stories
:: > Mithras eventually killed the bull of creation, thereby symbolising the
:: > victory of good over evil and death. It should be noted that christianity
:: > also involved sacrifice of a bull.
::
:: And a lamb. And a goat. And a ....... Next!



Yes. Nasty people, weren't they? The point is that the idea was blatantly lifted from Mithraic religion. I explain because I'm sure you missed that.


:: > The Christian cult began around 6 BCE, the Mithraic cult in 1400 BCE.
::
:: The Christian faith began when Jesus was teaching the Truth to mortals.
:: From about 33 BC to 0 BC/AD. To argue that the mythic Mithraic cult was in
:: existence 1400 BC, before Christ's ministry, is empty and vain. If it
:: existed at all, that it existed before Jesus walked the Earth does
not mean
:: it was before Christ who was with us at the Beginning.

Ok, we'll use your number, just for the sake of argument (though I couldn't find 33 BCE anywhere, but whatever). Mithraic religion began in 1400 BCE. Evidence has been found, so there's no denying this, unless to speculate that it began earlier. This means that it predates christianity. Therefore, even if you assume that the christian biblical myth is factual, still no one knew about god, jesus, etc etc until jesus was born and started telling them. About 33 BCE, by your own words. Thus we can see that the Mithraic cult had nothing to do with christianity because it didn't exist yet. Therefore your claim that it was a mockery of christianity is unfounded. Even you can see that, surely.


:: > Such people, frankly speaking, clearly have no
:: > idea what they're talking about.
::
:: Which is what I was thinking about you. Frankly.

You're right. All that evidence I provided, all that reasoning.. they certainly don't help my credibility, do they? Open your eyes, Tommy, and realise that you just might be mistaken.


:: I simply do not have the time to keep sinking your argument.

You really think that you have been doing that, don't you? That's rather typical of you. Having failed miserably to defend some of your ridiculous claims (and avoiding completely the rest), you then insist upon hiding behind your filter. If your claims were accurate, you would not feel it necessary to run away, would you? As it is, you know as well as I do that you're spewing nonsense, I'm sure.


:: There are many
:: who want and deserve a piece of my time as much as you. This is over.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. I suppose that this answers my original question about whether you really are the open-minded person you claim to be.


cheerfully,
-wildsong
http://www.violently-happy.net


if you need me, just email.
you know how to do that, don't you?
just put your cursor here and click

this site, and indeed all sites, best experienced with