I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally means to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine sorrow is only possible when we fully recognize that our only hope rests in the death of Jesus on the cross in our place. Helplessly we must turn away from self and "behold the Lamb of God," who takes away the sin of the world. What happens as we watch Him bleeding, suffering, and dying on the cross We realize that He was holy and innocent. We were the guilty ones. We should be hanging there instead of Him. We are overwhelmed to realize that He would have submitted to the torture and death for only one soul, even for you or me. Suddenly our eyes fill with tears as we realize that our sins caused His death on the cross. His heart was broken by the crushing weight of sins that had been taken from us. He was voluntarily suffering the punishment we deserved. We are filled with sorrow that we ever committed those very sins that now are taking the life of the Son of God. That sorrow is repentance. We must clearly distinguish between a worldly sorrow and a genuine godly sorrow. Sometimes children say, "I'm sorry" when facing punishment for misbehavior, but often they are merely regretful that they got caught. This is not true repentance. When I was in high school one of my teachers was the sports coach. He was a nice enough fellow, but not a very effective communicator. Therefore, it was a treat when a young lady teacher took his place in the middle of the school year. All of us boys were especially delighted because this new teacher was very pretty and not much older than some of us. In the beginning, we were vying for her attention in ways that were probably very distracting to everyone. One day I stayed after school with two friends to play some basketball. Later, after all the other students had left, we went by our room to pick up our books. Just before opening the door, we glanced through the one clear pane of glass in the door and there we saw our beautiful girl-teacher weeping at her desk. No one needed to tell us why she was crying, because we instantly remembered some of the things we had done during classes. None of us had any desire to hurt that teacher. We liked her very much and had no idea that we were causing her so much grief. We were sick and ashamed of ourselves that day, and it was three very sorry boys who crept down the hall without opening that door. All three of us made a covenant that day that we would never do anything again that would hurt our pretty young teacher. We were truly repentant. This same principle applies to those who feel sorrow for the pain their sins caused Jesus to suffer, and by God's grace they determine to turn away from everything displeasing to Him.
> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally means > to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine > sorrow
>> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally means >> to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine >> sorrow
>is pointless.
why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place... must be that the Devil still has a hold on their soul... hmmm... --
`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:48:52 GMT, "flower of romance" > <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:QrdAj.3$hr3.0@trnddc04... >>> What is Repentance
>>> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally >>> means >>> to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine >>> sorrow
>>is pointless.
> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place... > must be that the Devil still has a hold on their soul... hmmm...
We are incapable of "not sinning" but the best part is that even though we were born with these "design flaws" it's still our fault.So thier god fucks up and we get the blame. Don't you just love devine hipocrisy? :)
> `We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the > Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an > organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the > Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering > interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same > forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned > astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional > connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind > and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly > connected'' --B.D. Abramson
>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote in message >news:47d1d05b.150814304@news.sysmatrix.net... >> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:48:52 GMT, "flower of romance" >> <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:QrdAj.3$hr3.0@trnddc04... >>>> What is Repentance
>>>> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally >>>> means >>>> to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine >>>> sorrow
>>>is pointless.
>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place... >> must be that the Devil still has a hold on their soul... hmmm...
>We are incapable of "not sinning"
i don't know. in the bible it gives the impression that to be a true christian you really have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk... and i see not one christian walking the walk... it's all just talk... christianity is obamesque... no substance...
>but the best part is that even though we >were born with these "design flaws" it's still our fault.So thier god fucks >up and we get the blame. Don't you just love devine hipocrisy? :)
they go as far as to say if a child in africa never hears about jesus so he can't call on the name 'jesus' then he won't be saved... what if that child never did anything wrong... don't matter, he still will burn on hell for not calling on someone he had no idea even existed... christianity just sucks, period...
i'm amazed people fall for this shit... --
`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:58:54 GMT, "flower of romance" > <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote in message >>news:47d1d05b.150814304@news.sysmatrix.net... >>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:48:52 GMT, "flower of romance" >>> <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:QrdAj.3$hr3.0@trnddc04... >>>>> What is Repentance
>>>>> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally >>>>> means >>>>> to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine >>>>> sorrow
>>>>is pointless.
>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place... >>> must be that the Devil still has a hold on their soul... hmmm...
>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
> i don't know. in the bible it gives the impression that to be a > true christian you really have to walk the walk and not just talk > the talk... and i see not one christian walking the walk... it's > all just talk... christianity is obamesque... no substance...
It's not possible to be a true christian. hell most of em aren't even half arsed. It's easier to be the buddha; at least you get several lifetimes to figure it out.
>>but the best part is that even though we >>were born with these "design flaws" it's still our fault.So thier god >>fucks >>up and we get the blame. Don't you just love devine hipocrisy? :)
> they go as far as to say if a child in africa never hears about > jesus so he can't call on the name 'jesus' then he won't be > saved... what if that child never did anything wrong... don't > matter, he still will burn on hell for not calling on someone he > had no idea even existed... christianity just sucks, period...
> `We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the > Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an > organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the > Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering > interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same > forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned > astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional > connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind > and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly > connected'' --B.D. Abramson
>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net>: >> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote: >>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> What is Repentance
changing away from error toward upright life after realization of that error.
>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
>We are incapable of "not sinning"
that's silly. sinning is doing what your god has told you not to do. so either your god has silly rules which are anti- natural and you can't help breaking them or you aren't a very good dedicant to your deity (cuz you're not repenting).
>but the best part is that even though we >were born with these "design flaws"
yah it's usually the former (the god makes silly rules that its slaves cannot not break, always getting them down).
>it's still our fault.
that's how godfathers typically work, incombination with threats about what will happen to you if you don't obey.
>So thier god fucks up and we get the blame. >Don't you just love devine hipocrisy? :)
you could just switch allegiances to a different god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com>: >>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net>: >>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote: >>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> What is Repentance
> changing away from error toward upright life after > realization of that error.
The question is, what exactly IS an upright life? And according to whom? 3 monotheisms have the same rules. The Jewish is the only one that makes sense, probably because they are the originals and HAVE the original stuff, the doctrine, with elaborations on it. The other two copy cats don't have that. 3 religions have the same Bible. Notice how different the 3 are from each other? Night and day and then some.
>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
> error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
Yes. That's what "sin" means, originally. Error in logic.
>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
Not so. If you DO something you feel is wrong, KNOW is wrong, then that's a sin.
> that's silly. sinning is doing what your god has told you not > to do.
Nope, not quite. Doing what illiterate people that can't read Hebrew tell you not to do. I notice that those that command the serfs "not to steal or they'll burn in hell" are the biggest thieves. Heh. That's quite a racket.
so either your god has silly rules which are anti-
> natural and you can't help breaking them or you aren't a > very good dedicant to your deity (cuz you're not repenting).
Not quite so. I look at those "sins" and know the original meaning and the bullshit meanings. I never did any of them. I mean, I never did any of that before I even knew what they were.
Well, thou shalt not kill. Ok, that one. Self defense? But none of the others.
Perhaps greed, when I'm short on money, tho - so that's not even greed as defined.
I never tried not to do any of them either, as I said, I never even knew WHAT their sins were until I wrote an article on it.
>>but the best part is that even though we >>were born with these "design flaws"
> yah it's usually the former (the god makes silly rules that > its slaves cannot not break, always getting them down).
What rules? The sins are listed in my 666 article. I never had any desire to do any of that.
So, if you are talking about them, there they are. There is a group of 10 and another group of 7. Take a look.
>>it's still our fault.
> that's how godfathers typically work, incombination with > threats about what will happen to you if you don't obey.
LMAO, great! Dey breaka you legs, LOL.
>>So thier god fucks up and we get the blame. >>Don't you just love devine hipocrisy? :)
> you could just switch allegiances to a different > god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
That's why the Jewish religion (the original, not the two copies) is the best. It says the obvious and logical truth. ALL people have good and bad urges. You choose which to follow. Sin, the original meaning, means to err in logic, to not use logic. That's like eastern stuff.
If anyone wants to know the actual Greek meanings of these deadly sins, it's on our 666 page along with my way out there theory on what 666 might mean :) See what these sins are, at least, a group of 10 and another group of 7.
>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com>: >>>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net>: >>>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>The question is, what exactly IS an upright life?
basically one free from hypocrisy. the factors involved include the realization of error and interest in trying to minimize or eliminate such error. 'uprightness' is just an analogue of spacial coherency, integrity.
>And according to whom?
in my expression it was generally claimed. that means that i was saying it was for EVERYONE, a general contention overlooking the specifics. that is, the person who is evaluating the error is the one who can detect the repentance. if you have a moral authority you allow, then of course the evaluator(s) can expand somewhat (e.g. such as one's priests who tell you when you are conforming to the godrules).
>monotheisms have the same rules.
not sure that's accurate.
>The Jewish is the only one that makes sense, >probably because they are the originals and >HAVE the original stuff, the doctrine, with >elaborations on it. The other two copy cats
Christianity and Islam, apparently. there are other monotheisms.
>don't have that. 3 religions have the same Bible.
that's a generalization without accuracy. not only do the Muslims have their own scripture (Koran), and the Jews have an integrated distinction (as the Tanakh), but the Christians have at least *4* different things that they call 'The Bible', all 4 of which selectively appropriate from the Tanakh.
>Notice how different the 3 are from each other? >Night and day and then some.
there's a spectrum for each, it seems to me. there are liberal and conservative examples of each. they even try to derive themselves from related but comparable folktales (Abrahamic).
>>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
>> error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
>Yes. That's what "sin" means, originally. Error in logic.
words mean what you want them to. I am defining how i will interpret (overtop other usage) the term 'sin' because it serves my sociopolitical purpose in opposition to the use provided by expansive, imperialist religious doing similar but opposite things with the same terms.
here's an example of that from another:
>>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
I don't object so much to your expression, but primarily the "We're all sinners." line. I find this objectionable in that it projects the godfather atop the rest of us, and i oppose all the godfathers and reject imperialist, tyrannical and despot gods as unworthy of polite society.
>Not so. If you DO something you feel is wrong, >KNOW is wrong, then that's a sin.
you can struggle with the definition if you like. I will do it too, but i won't insist on 'right meanings' so much as consistently use the term in the way that i like, allowing others to do likewise in demonstration of our VALUES. my values are an egalitarian society in which we define words in the ways we like and abide by the lifestyles we prefer in a liberal context.
here's my counter-example
>> that's silly. sinning is doing what your god has >> told you not to do.
>Nope, not quite. Doing what illiterate people that >can't read Hebrew tell you not to do.
we're not speaking Hebrew. I don't find that attempts to usurp term meanings through appeal to etymology or "original meanings" is convincing. I prefer to describe them as i am encountering them. I see that these religious are following rulesets, generalizing them overtop all the rest of us, and then when the rules are broken they yell 'Sinner!' and so i can agree with their assessment when i reframe what they're doing:
they are pretending that i have the same kind of relationship with their god that they do
which is false, and i may get them to see this during our conversation through my activity.
if they understand that i have this difference and *still* assess me as such, then i know that they are worshipping a godfather who seeks dominion by force and i shall continue to oppose them and their god(s). I'll accept that they believe that their god makes the rules, and that they believe that they should follow them. if they think that they are 'sinners', then this must mean that the god either made really tough rules or they are very bad worshippers and don't really want to please their god by following their god's rules.
to me all of this is simply logical and deducible by observing their behaviours, describing them like any animal behaving in relation to expression.
>I notice that those that command the serfs "not >to steal or they'll burn in hell" are the biggest >thieves. Heh. That's quite a racket.
that imputes to them all a nefarious motivation. I don't think all of them have that motivation, though the net result due to self-conflict may be to what you are referring (hypocrisy and imperialism).
here's my reframing continued:
>> so either your god has silly rules which are anti- >> natural and you can't help breaking them or you aren't a >> very good dedicant to your deity (cuz you're not repenting).
notice that this leaves them to have their relationship with their god as they please, follow (or attempt to follow) whatever kind of ruleset that their god wants, as they perceive it, and asks them which of the logical conditions (godfather or bad worshipper) that they are manifesting. if they back off and say that their god makes impossible rules for them to follow then we may begin to ask why this is the case and if there is any value in it (for which i allow; see more on this below).
>Not quite so. I look at those "sins" and know the >original meaning and the bullshit meanings.
yes, you're doing in part what they are doing: trying to generalize overtop of them from what you are calling "original meanings". I am of the Humpty Dumpty school, to great degree, and prefer to hold them to account to *their god*, rather than to install for them some previous god's standard(s) from which they have varied and call that 'original' and 'right' as compared with 'bullshit' (which seems to me disrespectful and terminologically controlling of you).
they already offered to me a disrespect by bringing to me dictates of their imperialist god. they might not yet be aware that their god is a despot. they may not be aware that they can resist their cult's impetus to such despotism. atheists might not understand that we CAN distinguish godfathers from friendly gods who do not judge and try to coerce us. seeing a perspective from which we might all live peacably, it doesn't become required to agree on any 'right' or 'wrong' termsets or rulesets except to make societal laws.
here you refer to what are called 'The 10 Commandments':
>Well, thou shalt not kill.
so breaking the commandments of your god is sinful. makes sense to me. I don't much care what their god says is wrong for the god's slaves. if they can and want to conform to the dictates of their god, let them do that. I can live with that as long as the god isn't telling them to convert others through force and start troubling violence. we can restrict society to accepting civilized gods. and the Jewish god(s) isn't always very civilized.
> ...I never even knew WHAT their sins were until >I wrote an article on it.
naturally. cults vary considerably as to what their gods say the cultists have to abide. that's fine, like i said, as long as it conforms to a range which is civilized. those who try to project the rules of their god(s) out to others are imbeciles, or badly informed, because not all of us are the worshippers or slaves of their god. to presume that we are is to exhibit the imperialistic and despotic quality of the god which they worship. I like to arrive at identifications of the gods this way. it allows me to thereafter begin excluding cults from polite society (or at least identify which ones are compatible with that society rather than trying to change it into their pet theocracy) in a way that is functional rather than strictly based on allegiance.
>>>but the best part is that even though we >>>were born with these "design flaws"
>> yah it's usually the former (the god makes >> silly rules that its slaves cannot not break, >> always getting them down).
here i'm identifying a quality of dynamic betwixt certain gods and their worshippers (and in the case of despot or tyrannical gods, their slaves). they constantly have them feeling guilty and at a loss to the god because the god forbids things that occur in their everyday life naturally. this is effectively a type of neurotic asceticism, and i know from experience that there CAN be benefits to engaging ascetic disciplines intentionally.
>What rules?
the gods are usually provided with the responsibility for at least underwriting if not originating the rules. you mentioned one above in "no killing (often intepreted to be 'our clan' or 'our species')". that is a god rule these cultists follow. if they don't, then they better have good reason (such as that the god makes allowances for categories, like that they can kill the Amalekites, or cattle, or warriors from invasive communities), else they're hypocrites.
no they aren't. there is no Ur "sinset". that's a projection of a cult upon the world, and an attempt to set into stone certain significations of language (in this case that "'sins' [=] errors within the Self). it comes with its own loaded language and paradigm (of the Self, of where this leaves off and why, of errors within it) within your article, and i reject that as patently
...
>>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com>: >>>>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net>: >>>>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote:
> "GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> What is Repentance
Isn't that a fancy word for "I'm sorry?" I have said "I'm sorry" to people when I really WAS sorry - I had made an error and was sorry.
> "lorax666": >>> changing away from error toward upright life after >>> realization of that error.
> "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@spampost.com>: >>The question is, what exactly IS an upright life?
> basically one free from hypocrisy.
Hmm, most of the time, people use the word "hypocrisy" to define a person that says "people should do this" but do not do that themselves. Or "people should NOT do this" - but they go and do it. I disagree with that assessment. It's not based in reality (I'll explain in a sec).
I can say right now that people, human beings, SHOULD NOT do quite a lot of things that they do. And yet I do these things myself. Well? Still, humans should not do those things, but humans DO do these things.
For me, this is nothing but the realism of human nature at its worst contradicting the idealism. To be clear: humans should NOT FIGHT ANY WARS. There. That's clearer. It's a pipedream, too.
Other times, it's a statement of "we shoulds" that I could not possibly do (explore space, our space program, eg).
The example: the reality is that there are illegal aliens here. I'm pretty sure, but can't possibly prove, that a citizen, licensed and etc, that I hired had illegals working for him - and their children, too, helping out the adults. I can't possibly prove it, just because they were Hispanic.
He was a LOT cheaper and did very good work - compared to the more expensive (A LOT LOT more expensive, thousands more) deals out there.
I can't be sure because some, more and more, independents who are definitely citizens are AS cheap, and they are definitely citizens.
I advocate Tancredo's plan, attrition and deportation, going after companies that hire them.
I do not define that as hypocricy because it happens to BE the "order of the day." I can't go up to people and act like a cop, ask for proof of ID. But these are real examples.
A hypocrite, imo, WOULD be a person that preaches against gays, condemns them, wants to ban them, outlaw them and then turns out HE IS gay - on the sly, lying about it to everyone including his wife. That, imo, is despicable and it is hypocricy.
the factors involved
> include the realization of error and interest in trying > to minimize or eliminate such error. 'uprightness' is > just an analogue of spacial coherency, integrity.
>>And according to whom?
> in my expression it was generally claimed. that means > that i was saying it was for EVERYONE, a general > contention overlooking the specifics. that is, the > person who is evaluating the error is the one who > can detect the repentance. if you have a moral > authority you allow, then of course the evaluator(s) > can expand somewhat (e.g. such as one's priests who > tell you when you are conforming to the godrules).
That makes no sense to me. I mean, I don't understand what you just said! I don't have any moral authority - uh, I don't think I have morals, either. I have ideals, but I know they are not real. I'm VERY practical, btw.
It would be impossible for a person to try to make me feel "sorry" for something I did when I do not feel sorry at all.
>>monotheisms have the same rules.
> not sure that's accurate.
I meant that they all have the same 10 commandments.
>>The Jewish is the only one that makes sense, >>probably because they are the originals and >>HAVE the original stuff, the doctrine, with >>elaborations on it. The other two copy cats
> Christianity and Islam, apparently. > there are other monotheisms.
There are? LOL? Presently?
>>don't have that. 3 religions have the same Bible.
> that's a generalization without accuracy. not only > do the Muslims have their own scripture (Koran), > and the Jews have an integrated distinction (as > the Tanakh), but the Christians have at least *4* > different things that they call 'The Bible', all > 4 of which selectively appropriate from the Tanakh.
OK, but you can't find 3 more different groups of people than these three, which I chock up to genetics and culture both, together.
Btw, Jews also have Talmud and Zohar. Very important. Kaballa is making a big comeback too, in Israel, among the army (strong emphasis on "races of klippoth" doctrine - you can imagine what gets done with that!).
I didn't know that Christians had 4 different things all called Bible. What are they?
>>Notice how different the 3 are from each other? >>Night and day and then some.
> there's a spectrum for each, it seems to me. > there are liberal and conservative examples of > each. they even try to derive themselves from > related but comparable folktales (Abrahamic).
Yes, but there is still something very distinct about Jews and Christians - no matter if they are atheists. I need only talk 5 minutes to any and I can tell what they used to be. It's easy. They are just VERY different. Neither ever know what the fuck I am, needless to say :) They ask.
>>>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
>>> error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
>>Yes. That's what "sin" means, originally. Error in logic.
> words mean what you want them to. I am defining how i will > interpret (overtop other usage) the term 'sin' because it > serves my sociopolitical purpose in opposition to the use > provided by expansive, imperialist religious doing similar > but opposite things with the same terms.
OK, but you defined it right, an error in logic. No insight or foresight. I think you said that.
> here's an example of that from another: >>>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
I didn't say that thing about "not sinning." Someone else did. .
> I don't object so much to your expression, but primarily > the "We're all sinners." line. I find this objectionable > in that it projects the godfather atop the rest of us, > and i oppose all the godfathers and reject imperialist, > tyrannical and despot gods as unworthy of polite society.
TOUCHE, well said. Agree.
>>Not so. If you DO something you feel is wrong, >>KNOW is wrong, then that's a sin.
OK, I said that.
> you can struggle with the definition if you like.
Well, the person "feels wrong" about what he/she did, with this definition. Emphasis on "feel."
> I will do it too, but i won't insist on 'right > meanings' so much as consistently use the term > in the way that i like, allowing others to do > likewise in demonstration of our VALUES. my > values are an egalitarian society in which we > define words in the ways we like and abide by > the lifestyles we prefer in a liberal context.
LOL, that can lead to a HEAP of confusion, you know. It kinda helps to get "definitions" straightened out if you are gonna talk about things like this.
> here's my counter-example >>> that's silly. sinning is doing what your god has >>> told you not to do.
>>Nope, not quite. Doing what illiterate people that >>can't read Hebrew tell you not to do.
> we're not speaking Hebrew. I don't find that attempts > to usurp term meanings through appeal to etymology > or "original meanings" is convincing. I prefer to > describe them as i am encountering them. I see that > these religious are following rulesets, generalizing > them overtop all the rest of us, and then when > the rules are broken they yell 'Sinner!' and so i > can agree with their assessment when i reframe > what they're doing:
> they are pretending that i have the > same kind of relationship with their > god that they do
Yes, that's why I referred to the original Hebrew. I mean, Christians do that all the time, they refer to the "authority" of the OT or whatever. Well - it helps to know what the book actually SAYS - AND MEANS.
Oddly, I have never had anyone ever call me a sinner. LOL. Amazing. Then again, I don't associate with people that take religion seriously in their lives, either.
> which is false, and i may get them to see this > during our conversation through my activity.
> if they understand that i have this difference and > *still* assess me as such, then i know that they > are worshipping a godfather who seeks dominion by > force and i shall continue to oppose them and > their god(s). I'll accept that they believe that > their god makes the rules, and that they believe > that they should follow them. if they think that > they are 'sinners', then this must mean that the > god either made really tough rules or they are > very bad worshippers and don't really want to > please their god by following their god's rules.
LOL. OK.
> to me all of this is simply logical and deducible > by observing their behaviours, describing them > like any animal behaving in relation to expression.
Yes. It's not really possible to "see" them behaving on usenet, tho.
>>I notice that those that command the serfs "not >>to steal or they'll burn in hell" are the biggest >>thieves. Heh. That's quite a racket.
> that imputes to them all a nefarious motivation. > I don't think all of them have that motivation, > though the net result due to self-conflict may > be to what you are referring (hypocrisy and > imperialism).
Yes. Most of the time, if they stole it was cuz they were starving as were their kids. They stole food.
> here's my reframing continued: >>> so either your god has silly rules which are anti- >>> natural and you can't help breaking them or you aren't a >>> very good dedicant to your deity (cuz you're not repenting).
> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com>: >>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net>: >>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote: >>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> What is Repentance
> changing away from error toward upright life after > realization of that error.
>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
> error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
> that's silly. sinning is doing what your god has told you not > to do.
Are you saying that athiests don't sin?
Actussely you're wrong, Sin is not doing what your religious dogma tells you to do.
>so either your god has silly rules which are anti- > natural and you can't help breaking them or you aren't a > very good dedicant to your deity (cuz you're not repenting).
Supposing I don't have a diety or I have more than one diety? What then?
>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
> you could. some of us did.
There is another way to see this. Let us say that your God is the Cosmos itself - or the dark force in nature. Let us say that this god has only what is absolutely and literally true to tell us. This is what this god says:
1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad. 2. All things are permitted, the only exceptions being purely physical ones. (I.e., you are not permitted to breathe water because, as a human, you simply can't do that. You are not permitted to walk through a wall, because as a being made of matter, you can't.)
That's it. Nothing else.
Now, one might ask why have a god at all, if those are the only 2 things told to you by this god? Well, heh, if a GOD said it and it's written in a BOOK - then heh - you know how the rest of that goes. What kind of society would we have? Maybe no society? Anarchy leads to gangs - I won't even debate that no-brainer.
However, in time, people would get the idea that "tit for tat" doesn't always work out, even if the gang were doing tit for tat (that's, more or less, a kind of golden rule that not just humans tend to follow - there is more cooperation in the animal world than there is competition). Someone might get the other idea that "well, if EVERYONE did this thing, what would happen?" And what might happen might seriously suck. Or it might be seriously good.
Someone would come along and claim that this God had 3 rules, or 4, or 5 - and you know how that goes. They'd be laws - with a bit of that emphasis for those that need it: the old "GOD said it."
On the other hand, if someone, some person with brute force and a following, decides that something is good for him and his gang and fuck everyone else - that person could also come up with rules 6, 7, 8 and so forth - and enforce those rules until, eventually, in a few generations - nobody knows that anything changed - and this new regime becomes the status quo.
I have a very good reason, one on one, to know HOW such things end up turning out - and that's from personal experience of seeing it literally happen with something amoral and 100% individualistic. In the hands of other people, even THAT can become something very different. Personally seen it.
So let us say that humans evolved out of the need for any gods. Then they'd have "the ruler" and what "the ruler said" - i.e., laws. Ok, the congress. The house of reps. Oooo, the Supreme Court (9 fucking people in black robes - HOH sound familiar?). Doesn't matter if the laws are just or not. Some of our laws are ridiculous - stupid beyond measure. But nonetheless, almost impossible to overturn even if the majority wants them overturned - and this is SUPPOSED to be a gov of, by, and for the people. Yeah, how long did THAT last? Not long.
not as i have it from religious who use it intelligently. they mean 'reforming to the (understood) moral standard after a time of waywardness'. that's why i posted about 'uprightness' and 'hypocrisy' being the poles of it. being sorry can inspire reform, or repentance, yes.
lorax666:
>>>> changing away from error toward upright life after >>>> realization of that error.
>>>The question is, what exactly IS an upright life?
lorax666:
>> basically one free from hypocrisy.
>Hmm, most of the time, people use the word "hypocrisy" >to define a person that says "people should do this" >but do not do that themselves. Or "people should NOT >do this" - but they go and do it. ...
agreed, which is why i said 'basically' above. another word i used was 'integrity'. the ducks must be in rows, and if you discover they aren't, you'll try to fix 'em. trying to fix them is repenting.
>...humans should NOT FIGHT ANY WARS....
are you fighting any wars? I don't think so. agreed that hypocrisy has a number of instances. my point was about discovering errors in your own life and rectifying these toward whatever you're seeing as moral or ethical (either is fine with me). that's what i understand 'repentance' to be: coming (back) into conformity with what is right.
>> the factors involved >> include the realization of error and interest in trying >> to minimize or eliminate such error. 'uprightness' is >> just an analogue of spacial coherency, integrity.
this is the important part, just above. if you find any problems with the above, do let me know.
>> ...the person who is evaluating the error is the >> one who can detect the repentance. if you have a moral >> authority you allow, then of course the evaluator(s) >> can expand somewhat (e.g. such as one's priests who >> tell you when you are conforming to the godrules).
>That makes no sense to me. I mean, I don't understand >what you just said! ....
I thought it was pretty clear. it doesn't necessarily apply to you in the sense that you don't acknowledge any moral authorities (except perhaps yourself as an ethical authority for yourself). I would include that also. if you think that you err by doing a thing and find yourself doing it, then when you change to come into conformity with your own notions of what is right for you, you have repented.
> It would be impossible for a person to try to make > me feel "sorry" for something I did when I do not > feel sorry at all.
no, but that's an important part of coming to repent. if you *did* feel sorry because you behaved in a way that you regretted, in which you did not live up to your ideals, and then you put effort into reforming yourself so that future interactions had you doing something more closely conforming to your ideals, then i would describe you as having repented (in as much a degree as you met with your own ideals). that you felt sorry can be an impetus for that reform. for those who have godrules, then coming back into conformity with those godrules is repentance. if you are your own god and either make rules for yourself or have ideals to live up to then you can use that instead of external-oriented godrules.
>>>monotheisms have the same rules.
>> not sure that's accurate.
>I meant that they all have the same 10 commandments.
thanks for clarifying. you are correct that the Tanakh is regarded as important by all Abrahamic faiths, but with different emphases. Jews (especially the most conservative, not the atheists or ethical culturals) regard it as a dictate from their god Jehovah. Christians (many of them) regard it as an (absorbed, appropriated) dictate from their god Jehovah/Jesus to *Jews* which may now, with the New Testament, no longer apply in the same way (because other, more important laws given by Jesus, later, ostensibly to 'fulfill' the old Law of Moses, now factor in more heavily). Muslims regard it as part of a corrupted set of scriptures given to Jews and Christians but of questionable authenticity in comparison with Koran.
you are correct that they all pay attention to these 10 Statements as relevant to their moral rectitude. who they are and to what cult they belong determines how much stock they put into it, since Muslims maintain that prophecy has ended with Muhammad, Christians maintain that their god had a humanoid child of variable character, and Jews (generally) maintain that no messiah/christos has yet arrived.
>>>The Jewish is the only one that makes sense, >>>probably because they are the originals and >>>HAVE the original stuff, the doctrine, with >>>elaborations on it. The other two copy cats
>> Christianity and Islam, apparently. >> there are other monotheisms.
>There are? LOL? Presently?
sure. Rastafarians, Baha'i, Zoroastrians. there are bunches of them which some would prefer to group with the 3 upon which you were focussing. you could also include radical goddess worshippers who only regard the Goddess as their/a deity.
>>>don't have that. 3 religions have the same Bible.
>> that's a generalization without accuracy. not only >> do the Muslims have their own scripture (Koran), >> and the Jews have an integrated distinction (as >> the Tanakh), but the Christians have at least *4* >> different things that they call 'The Bible', all >> 4 of which selectively appropriate from the Tanakh.
>OK, but you can't find 3 more different groups of >people than these three, which I chock up to >genetics and culture both, together....
I don't know how that would be measured/determined.
>I didn't know that Christians had 4 different >things all called Bible. What are they?
4 different Christian Bibles with different numbers/compositions of books (editions):
>>>>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
>>>> error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
I was answering why they just didn't do wrongs in the first place. I wasn't defining anything here.
>>>Yes. That's what "sin" means, originally. Error in logic.
you contended after me that this is what 'sin' is. I wasn't trying to make that point, only explain why people did wrongs (which is what these religious mean by 'sinning' -- and what i reinterpret as 'breaking their godrules'). you can apply this to yourself by asking why you wind up feeling sorry when you do. presumably it is because you made an error, had a lack of foresight, or insight into the situation, or something similar. our ignorance rather than our "evil" factors into doing what we consider to be erring, as i see it.
>> words mean what you want them to. I am defining how i will >> interpret (overtop other usage) the term 'sin' because it >> serves my sociopolitical purpose in opposition to the use >> provided by expansive, imperialist religious doing similar >> but opposite things with the same terms.
>OK, but you defined it right, an error in logic. No insight >or foresight. I think you said that.
you thought that i said that, but i never did, i was just answering the question of why people do wrong in the first place rather than having to repent (reform).
here's an example of that from another:
>>>>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
>I didn't say that thing about "not sinning." Someone else did.
correct. originally i left all their names up top.
>> I don't object so much to your expression, but primarily >> the "We're all sinners." line. I find this objectionable >> in that it projects the godfather atop the rest of us, >> and i oppose all the godfathers and reject imperialist, >> tyrannical and despot gods as unworthy of polite society.
>TOUCHE, well said. Agree.
thanks, that's my main point here and i see that we're largely agreed as to the gist and kernel of what i was maintaining. after that it becomes a review of word usage or some kind of semantical wrangle in which i have little interest with you because we are agreed on the foundations.
>>>Not so. If you DO something you feel is wrong, >>>KNOW is wrong, then that's a sin.
>OK, I said that.
for you this is right and proper. for those who accept moral authorities (priests, what they perceive to be gods who have representatives, etc.), then they might not know it to be wrong, just that 'it is a sin to do it'. that's why i call it a (/their) godruleset.
>> you can struggle with the definition if you like.
>Well, the person "feels wrong" about what he/she did, >with this definition. Emphasis on "feel."
you do. not all religious do except that they are going against what their god told them to do as they see it, or at least not fulfilling some unattainable rule(s).
>> I will do it too, but i won't insist on 'right >> meanings' so much as consistently use the term >> in the way that i like, allowing others to do >> likewise in demonstration of our VALUES. my >> values are an egalitarian society in which we >> define words in the ways we like and abide by >> the lifestyles we prefer in a liberal context.
>LOL, that can lead to a HEAP of confusion, you know.
I don't mind because it is workable. it can lead to the exclusion of violent and uncivilized cults. the idiots can be confused while we figure it all out.
>It kinda helps to get "definitions" straightened >out if you are gonna talk about things like this.
as i said, i'm with Charles Dodgeson (Lewis Carroll, a logician and author of books of Alice in Wonderland and other fanciful poems and stories inclusive of his Humpty Dumpty character) who argued outside of these works with philosophers for *definitions that are internal to a given expression* rather than that one definition should be suitable for all. if you've defined what *you* mean for your work, then i can see what you mean interior to it,
...
>"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message >> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com>: >>>"marques de sade" <jesucris...@netscape.net>: >>>> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote: >>>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenysorli...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> What is Repentance
>> changing away from error toward upright life after >> realization of that error.
>>>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
>> error. lack of foresight. lack of insight, etc.
>>>We are incapable of "not sinning"
>> that's silly. sinning is doing what your god has told you not >> to do.
>Are you saying that athiests don't sin?
of course.
>Actussely you're wrong, Sin is not doing what your >religious dogma tells you to do.
in which case atheists have no religious dogma and do not sin.
>> so either your god has silly rules which are anti- >> natural and you can't help breaking them or you aren't a >> very good dedicant to your deity (cuz you're not repenting). > Supposing I don't have a diety
then you cannot break your godrules and cannot sin.
> or I have more than one diety? What then?
you might sin by evaluation of *several deities* if more than one of them gives you godrules.
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message >>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change. >"flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote in message >> you could. some of us did.
I'll call this hypothesis B. I see no reason to equate A with B.
> Let us say that this god has only what is absolutely >and literally true to tell us.
this is confused and nonsensical. the cosmos as a whole doesn't speak, unless you take a certain subset's expression as the expression FOR the whole. why you identify this as you do is anybody's guess.
>This is what this god says:
I'll evaluate this contention below.
>1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad.
A: the Cosmos says nothing specifically and therefore does not say this specifically.
B: since i have no data on this "dark force in nature" and how it expresses anything, i see no justification for considering 1. above to be accurate. explain how it is that you have come the conclusion that any "dark force in nature" says this.
>2. All things are permitted, the only exceptions being >purely physical ones. >(I.e., you are not permitted to breathe water because, >as a human, you simply can't do that. You are not >permitted to walk through a wall, because as a being >made of matter, you can't.)
A: this seems demonstrably accurate: that which is beyond our abilities transcends natural principles. this isn't really about "permission" but about the extant operating principles constraining all of us.
B: since i have no data on this "dark force in nature" and how it expresses anything, i see no justification for considering 2. above to be accurate based on it. explain how it is that you have come the conclusion that any "dark force in nature" says this.
>Now, one might ask why have a god at all, if those >are the only 2 things told to you by this god?
you are maintaining to us that the Cosmos and the dark force of nature told you these things, 1 and 2 above?
>Well, heh, if a GOD said it and it's written in a >BOOK - then heh - you know how the rest of that goes.
I wrote fictional stories about gods. there is no reason that others could not have also done so.
>What kind of society would we have? > Maybe no society?
>>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
>> you could. some of us did.
> There is another way to see this. Let us say that your God is the Cosmos > itself - or the dark force in nature. Let us say that this god has only > what is absolutely and literally true to tell us. This is what this god > says:
> 1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad. > 2. All things are permitted, the only exceptions being purely physical > ones. (I.e., you are not permitted to breathe water because, as a human, > you simply can't do that. You are not permitted to walk through a wall, > because as a being made of matter, you can't.)
> That's it. Nothing else.
something i've contemplated before now. I mean who or what has authority over us other than the ohysical constraints as you pointed out. True you could go on a killing spree and get gunned down for your troubles but you took the shit of no'one. ;)
> Now, one might ask why have a god at all, if those are the only 2 things > told to you by this god? Well, heh, if a GOD said it and it's written in > a BOOK - then heh - you know how the rest of that goes. What kind of > society would we have? Maybe no society? Anarchy leads to gangs - I > won't even debate that no-brainer.
But the gods never said anything about it being written in a book. People did then told us it was gods. If I was a god, I wouldn't bother trying to talk to people. I would just make them extinct.
> However, in time, people would get the idea that "tit for tat" doesn't > always work out, even if the gang were doing tit for tat (that's, more or > less, a kind of golden rule that not just humans tend to follow - there is > more cooperation in the animal world than there is competition). Someone > might get the other idea that "well, if EVERYONE did this thing, what > would happen?" And what might happen might seriously suck. Or it might > be seriously good.
I agree. The term "law of the jungle" always amuses especially when you should look and see that there is a lot of order in the jungle. trouble with tit for tat is that it never is. tit is responded by tat and them sum which is in turn responded by a greater amount of tit and it's not everyday i get to say that.. eventually it results in war..
> Someone would come along and claim that this God had 3 rules, or 4, or 5 - > and you know how that goes. They'd be laws - with a bit of that emphasis > for those that need it: the old "GOD said it."
Yeah and they stick the odd extra one in here and there aswell. You see all this dogma of all these religions and most of it has fuck all to do with thier gods
> On the other hand, if someone, some person with brute force and a > following, decides that something is good for him and his gang and fuck > everyone else - that person could also come up with rules 6, 7, 8 and so > forth - and enforce those rules until, eventually, in a few generations - > nobody knows that anything changed - and this new regime becomes the > status quo.
All too familier
> I have a very good reason, one on one, to know HOW such things end up > turning out - and that's from personal experience of seeing it literally > happen with something amoral and 100% individualistic. In the hands of > other people, even THAT can become something very different. Personally > seen it.
We've all seen such things but few regocnize it for what it is.
> So let us say that humans evolved out of the need for any gods. Then > they'd have "the ruler" and what "the ruler said" - i.e., laws. Ok, the > congress. The house of reps. Oooo, the Supreme Court (9 fucking people in > black robes - HOH sound familiar?). Doesn't matter if the laws are just > or not. Some of our laws are ridiculous - stupid beyond measure. But > nonetheless, almost impossible to overturn even if the majority wants them > overturned - and this is SUPPOSED to be a gov of, by, and for the people. > Yeah, how long did THAT last? Not long.
That's it you see. We are supposed to be puppets; obey these stupid laws without question but we are thinking creatures. Though most of us aint Geniuses we are capable of spotting stupid laws. some rebel some don't. Some of us aren't sontent to be sheep.
if you're gonna die, die with your boots on if you're gonna die... --
`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
> "lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message >>>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >>>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
>>"flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote in message >>> you could. some of us did.
> "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@spampost.com>: >>There is another way to see this.
> there are many.
>>Let us say that your God is the Cosmos itself
> I'll call this hypothesis A.
>>- or the dark force in nature.
> I'll call this hypothesis B. I see no reason to > equate A with B.
>> Let us say that this god has only what is absolutely >>and literally true to tell us.
> this is confused and nonsensical. the cosmos as a > whole doesn't speak, unless you take a certain > subset's expression as the expression FOR the whole. > why you identify this as you do is anybody's guess.
No, I said "let us say that....." It's hypothetical.
>>1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad.
> A: the Cosmos says nothing specifically and therefore > does not say this specifically.
> B: since i have no data on this "dark force in nature" > and how it expresses anything, i see no justification > for considering 1. above to be accurate. explain how > it is that you have come the conclusion that any "dark > force in nature" says this.
>>2. All things are permitted, the only exceptions being >>purely physical ones. >>(I.e., you are not permitted to breathe water because, >>as a human, you simply can't do that. You are not >>permitted to walk through a wall, because as a being >>made of matter, you can't.)
> A: this seems demonstrably accurate: that which is > beyond our abilities transcends natural principles. > this isn't really about "permission" but about the > extant operating principles constraining all of us.
Yes, what I said "the God said" is a trueism! Nothing more. This is more or less something that has to read first, before responding to pieces of it. It's a hypothetical.
> B: since i have no data on this "dark force in nature" > and how it expresses anything, i see no justification > for considering 2. above to be accurate based on it. > explain how it is that you have come the conclusion > that any "dark force in nature" says this.
>>Now, one might ask why have a god at all, if those >>are the only 2 things told to you by this god?
> you are maintaining to us that the Cosmos and the > dark force of nature told you these things, 1 and > 2 above?
LMAO, no. "Let us say that....." - I started it that way. WAIT, who was that who just called out my name....heh, JOKING.
>>Well, heh, if a GOD said it and it's written in a >>BOOK - then heh - you know how the rest of that goes.
> I wrote fictional stories about gods. there is no > reason that others could not have also done so.
Oh hush. It's my hypothesis, at least lemme finish it.
>>What kind of society would we have? >> Maybe no society?
My tax money is being used to fund one that I'm dead against. I can't really DO anything about it within reason, for me (like move out of the country).
>>Well, the person "feels wrong" about what he/she did, >>with this definition. Emphasis on "feel."
> you do. not all religious do except that they are going > against what their god told them to do as they see it, > or at least not fulfilling some unattainable rule(s).
Well, in far too many religions, right here in the usa, people are told "it's wrong" but they feel it's not wrong and have a conflict with their church over this. When I hear about it, I usually say nothing - just utter silence. Nothing TO say.
> you single out the Muslims. I think that's mistaken.
Uh, do you have ANY idea what's going on in England and Europe? Yes, I single them out. I've known peaceful ones too, even non-religious ones in my own family (cousins) - but I've also seen them CHANGE and become quite dangerous.
>> Not my god. I think people SHOULD kill under >> certain circumstances.
> I was talking about a general 'you', not you personally. > you can substitute 'one' in the above if you like: > "breaking the commandments of one's god is sinful. > makes sense to me."
Well, BIG problem with English. The plural of you is you. That seriously sucks. That's why NE people tend to say yous and southerners say y'all.
>> That's their history, though.
> for any that it can be demonstrated that converting > others by force and starting troubling violence is > their historical activity then we should examine > their current activities and, if it can be shown > that they are still attempting this, enact laws > to forbid and limit them.
Got any idea what they are up to regarding courts and the Supreme Court? They are doing this "by force" the way the left did things by force - same tactics.
>> It still is, sans the violence these days - >> at least for Chrsitians.
> they are converting others by force? then they > should be restricted and forbidden to operate. > I have met Christians who did not do this. you > appear to be generalizing without warrant.
See above re courts. Yes, that's force - and it's only just begun. It's not religious per se - but it's our laws. Our freedoms, too.
>> Not so for Moslems.
> they are converting others by force? then they > should be restricted and forbidden to operate. > I have met Muslims who did not do this. you > appear to be generalizing without warrant.
They are doing it via ostracism, peer pressure and even death threats. Take note of England and Europe. It's called Jihad and there are quite a few strategies in it, like moving in, establishing a community (which is then declared part of Allah, Islamic) and pushing for Sharia laws in western countries. That's force. It's intimidation. It's already ruined free speech in those countries - and I mean on a BIG scale, not small stuff.
>> But this is not the doing of gods. It's the >> doing of PEOPLE, of RULERS.
> that's your assessment. I don't find that to be > helpful in holding the god or cult responsible for > the behaviours of the members of the cult. they'll > just get other people in there and do it again.
Uh, these are HUGE cults you are talking about here. HUGE. See above on courts, coercion, intimidation, etc. They ARE doing this right now, not in the USA except in some communities of them, but abroad.
> instead, we should hold the entire cult and the god > presumed to be behind it responsible when the cult > overtly supports violence and conversion by force > and then people in the cult act on this, and this > means accepting what they say about their god > wanting them to do this, and so at that point > forbidding that type of religion from civilized > society. they'll go underground, which is fine.
No, it's not fine if they go underground. It's more dangerous. With cults getting their hands on seriously deadly shit that can kill millions of people, it's dangerous shit.
> laying it out is very easy to do, and as intelligent > and liberal people we can agree to it and support it. > those people trying to spread their cult and the > dominion of their god by force and violence should > be our adversaries and we should forbid their cults. > I oppose their cults and want laws against them and > their anti-social, uncivilized behaviours. don't you?
Yes, I do - but see above regarding our courts. Force can take on many forms, not just violence. A friend of mine said that during the Breshnev days in the USSR, there was no violence anywhere, everything was very very safe there, no robberies, no break-ins, none of the shit she experienced here in the USA in Newark NJ. But there was this ubiquitous and overwhelming sense of FEAR at all times. She said it was hard to explain. Uh, heh, no, I think it's not hard to explain. We see it going on right now in England and Europe. FEAR. Fear to even speek freely.
>> It is already hard to do with people harassing >> others with their beliefs.
> laying it out is very easy to do, and i can ignore > the harassing when it occurs in cyberspace.
I don't mean cyberspace. I mean real life - using politics and the courts. Secular people in the left did the same shit - and now the Christian right is copying their tactics. They learned the tactics.
>>Oh? Theft of MY tax dollars ....
> that's not theft by conventional law. if you don't > like the taxes of a state, shift states.
No state taxes. I mean Federal ones. I don't want to move to another country.
you are
> merely redefining terms to fit your arguments.
Nope, I mean it literally. I regard that stuff as THEFT of my dollars.
>> ...Extortion - what insurance companies do.
> ridiculous.
OH, not so if they force you to HAVE TO HAVE insurance. Once upon a time, you did not have to have auto insurance or house insurance. Now you HAVE to have it. And it's highway robbery so bad that our Gov wanted to investigate the insurance companies for it. They hid their records!
>>.... Decriminalize drugs and prostitution....
> we are agreed on that, which is why i left those parts > of the page to which you referred out and said that i > don't find them valuable to outlaw. I *support* > criminalizing the operation of heavy machinery and > exercizing positions of social authority while > intoxicated, however.
When I say decriminalize, that's not quite the same as "make it legal." If a person can't refrain from indulging in this kind of thing while working such jobs, then treat it as an illness.
>>> the rest >>> might not be good aims, but they aren't worth >>> restricting in polite society. if someone wants >>> to omit the other 14 from their god rules, >>> then they should still be allowed in society.
I wouldn't ban any of those rules. If people want them, fine. Odd thing is, I don't break any of them personally at all, and I didn't even know what they were. I told you, I'm quite the square - and consider that I do INDULGE in everything I want to indulge in. Always did.
How I came upon them, with the Greek and their definitions is interesting, but not for usenet. But the person that showed them to me wanted me to see them because he KNEW me quite awhile.
He found it kinda funny that a person (me) that was SO against organized religion, would BE against it. As I said, he knew me before he showed that to me. And so I wrote it up with my 666 theory, which floored HIM when he saw it. HA!
>> ...a tiny minority that rises to the top in >> EVERYTHING they endeavor to do. They are >> the story of a success. ...They have the >> best strategy when they are inside of >> other societies.
> there are too many meters of success for me to agree > with such a generalization.
Hmm, I disagree.
>> They can't be in polite society....
> I think your generalizations are outrageous.
I think their demands in England and Europe are outrageous. I keep up with that stuff. It's political.
>>Bad is what is bad for you. Good is what is good >>for you. Simple.
> too simple, not workable.
It's workable for me.
>>> I prefer the religions which start by saying that >>> humans are basically "good" and get warped by bad >>> parenting or a flaw in their make-up.
>>Yes, so? It could be a genetic flaw, too >>(in their make up).
> lots of things "could be" lots of other things. until > we have some reason to believe that they in fact are > so, then espousing these kinds of generalizations is > outrageous and quickly become foolish bigotry.
Such things are being studied these days, by biologists, geneticists, neurologists.
> that seems to me a borderline zone. I think that we ought > first focus on circumcision (male and female) and the > withholding of modern technology and medicine from > children who need it as forms of child abuse. until then > the rest is outrageous and liable merely to incite raving.
Agree on circumcision. Preaching to kids that they are "born bad" is abuse. I won't budge on that one. Teaching them that there is a Big Gestapo in the sky watching them is abuse. I won't budge.
>>> I don't like repressive regimes.
>>MOST Asian and Indian regimes ARE repressive >>and despotic, by the way.
> any that are we should oppose them, embargo them, etc. > within or without is unimportant to me.
Disagree. The USA should keep out of their shit - and trade/deal with nations that benefit US. Let them do what they want. Monroe Doctrine.
> their ruleset isn't yours, so your essay isn't > going to be helpful in determining your repenting.
I don't repent. I don't even like the word. If I fucked up, I'm sorry and then get on with it. I don't
...
>>>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >>>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
>>> you could. some of us did.
>> There is another way to see this. Let us say that your God is the Cosmos >> itself - or the dark force in nature. Let us say that this god has only >> what is absolutely and literally true to tell us. This is what this god >> says:
>> 1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad. >> 2. All things are permitted, the only exceptions being purely physical >> ones. (I.e., you are not permitted to breathe water because, as a human, >> you simply can't do that. You are not permitted to walk through a wall, >> because as a being made of matter, you can't.)
>> That's it. Nothing else.
> something i've contemplated before now. I mean who or what has authority > over us other than the physical constraints as you pointed out. True you > could go on a killing spree and get gunned down for your troubles but you > took the shit of no'one. ;)
Exactly. Those two "rules" are the ONLY rules that this God tells you, and you claim that. It's your religion, you are gonna start one. You are eg, Ruler of BIG nation of old. Like that.
>> Now, one might ask why have a god at all, if those are the only 2 things >> told to you by this god? Well, heh, if a GOD said it and it's written in >> a BOOK - then heh - you know how the rest of that goes. What kind of >> society would we have? Maybe no society? Anarchy leads to gangs - I >> won't even debate that no-brainer.
> But the gods never said anything about it being written in a book. People > did then told us it was gods.
That's what I'm saying. You present the 2 rules from God with the book as your authority - you know, like you are a person like Moses, or rules of BIG nation, like Pharaoh or something.
> If I was a god, I wouldn't bother trying to talk to people. I would just > make them extinct.
LOL. No, you are the person that's making the claims about what God said - and you wrote it down, 2 rules, for society, your society.
>> However, in time, people would get the idea that "tit for tat" doesn't >> always work out, even if the gang were doing tit for tat (that's, more or >> less, a kind of golden rule that not just humans tend to follow - there >> is more cooperation in the animal world than there is competition). >> Someone might get the other idea that "well, if EVERYONE did this thing, >> what would happen?" And what might happen might seriously suck. Or it >> might be seriously good.
> I agree. The term "law of the jungle" always amuses especially when you > should look and see that there is a lot of order in the jungle. trouble > with tit for tat is that it never is. tit is responded by tat and them sum > which is in turn responded by a greater amount of tit and it's not > everyday i get to say that.. eventually it results in war..
I meant tit for tat in terms of trade and exchange, favors, etc. not war.
Sure, there is order in a jungle (this is a different subject) but seriously, you personally would NOT want to be living in a jungle like primitive ancestors did and have to contend with the order therein. Keep in mind, our ancestors were PREY.
>> Someone would come along and claim that this God had 3 rules, or 4, or >> 5 - and you know how that goes. They'd be laws - with a bit of that >> emphasis for those that need it: the old "GOD said it."
> Yeah and they stick the odd extra one in here and there aswell. You see > all this dogma of all these religions and most of it has fuck all to do > with thier gods
That's what I'm saying. But now, this following paragraph, everything changes:
>> On the other hand, if someone, some person with brute force and a >> following, decides that something is good for him and his gang and fuck >> everyone else - that person could also come up with rules 6, 7, 8 and so >> forth - and enforce those rules until, eventually, in a few generations - >> nobody knows that anything changed - and this new regime becomes the >> status quo.
> All too familier
Yes - and here we are today :)
>> So let us say that humans evolved out of the need for any gods. Then >> they'd have "the ruler" and what "the ruler said" - i.e., laws. Ok, the >> congress. The house of reps. Oooo, the Supreme Court (9 fucking people >> in black robes - HOH sound familiar?). Doesn't matter if the laws are >> just or not. Some of our laws are ridiculous - stupid beyond measure. >> But nonetheless, almost impossible to overturn even if the majority wants >> them overturned - and this is SUPPOSED to be a gov of, by, and for the >> people. Yeah, how long did THAT last? Not long.
> That's it you see. We are supposed to be puppets; obey these stupid laws > without question but we are thinking creatures. Though most of us aint > Geniuses we are capable of spotting stupid laws. some rebel some don't. > Some of us aren't sontent to be sheep.
The ones that never intended to be sheep got connections and clout and started to MAKE the laws, new ones - often shit that was against what people wanted. Some people have no problem with the laws, even speeding laws - but that wasn't my point. We are supposed to have freedom of speech here, and I don't mean usenet. I mean professors speaking freely. They do not have it. It's gone. There is tyranny on the horizon now - and it IS tyranny. Others just join gangs and break the laws and don't give a shit AT ALL about laws. They have their own laws - and they are of the jungle, for sure. That's also no way to have a civilization or a society.
> `We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
> >>>> you could just switch allegiances to a different > >>>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
> >>> you could. some of us did.
> >> There is another way to see this. Let us say that your God is the Cosmos > >> itself - or the dark force in nature. Let us say that this god has only > >> what is absolutely and literally true to tell us. This is what this god > >> says:
> >> 1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad. > >> 2. All things are permitted, the only exceptions being purely physical > >> ones. (I.e., you are not permitted to breathe water because, as a human, > >> you simply can't do that. You are not permitted to walk through a wall, > >> because as a being made of matter, you can't.)
> >> That's it. Nothing else.
> > something i've contemplated before now. I mean who or what has authority > > over us other than the physical constraints as you pointed out. True you > > could go on a killing spree and get gunned down for your troubles but you > > took the shit of no'one. ;)
> Exactly. Those two "rules" are the ONLY rules that this God tells you, and > you claim that. It's your religion, you are gonna start one. You are eg, > Ruler of BIG nation of old. Like that.
My religion suits me and anyone else can choose for themselves.
> >> Now, one might ask why have a god at all, if those are the only 2 things > >> told to you by this god? Well, heh, if a GOD said it and it's written in > >> a BOOK - then heh - you know how the rest of that goes. What kind of > >> society would we have? Maybe no society? Anarchy leads to gangs - I > >> won't even debate that no-brainer.
> > But the gods never said anything about it being written in a book. People > > did then told us it was gods.
> That's what I'm saying. You present the 2 rules from God with the book as > your authority - you know, like you are a person like Moses, or rules of BIG > nation, like Pharaoh or something.
exactly. People all the way.
> > If I was a god, I wouldn't bother trying to talk to people. I would just > > make them extinct.
> LOL. No, you are the person that's making the claims about what God said - > and you wrote it down, 2 rules, for society, your society.
> >> However, in time, people would get the idea that "tit for tat" doesn't > >> always work out, even if the gang were doing tit for tat (that's, more or > >> less, a kind of golden rule that not just humans tend to follow - there > >> is more cooperation in the animal world than there is competition). > >> Someone might get the other idea that "well, if EVERYONE did this thing, > >> what would happen?" And what might happen might seriously suck. Or it > >> might be seriously good.
> > I agree. The term "law of the jungle" always amuses especially when you > > should look and see that there is a lot of order in the jungle. trouble > > with tit for tat is that it never is. tit is responded by tat and them sum > > which is in turn responded by a greater amount of tit and it's not > > everyday i get to say that.. eventually it results in war..
> I meant tit for tat in terms of trade and exchange, favors, etc. not war.
Same thing.
> Sure, there is order in a jungle (this is a different subject) but > seriously, you personally would NOT want to be living in a jungle like > primitive ancestors did and have to contend with the order therein. Keep in > mind, our ancestors were PREY.
I agree. We are not equipped to be the upper dogs.
> >> Someone would come along and claim that this God had 3 rules, or 4, or > >> 5 - and you know how that goes. They'd be laws - with a bit of that > >> emphasis for those that need it: the old "GOD said it."
> > Yeah and they stick the odd extra one in here and there aswell. You see > > all this dogma of all these religions and most of it has fuck all to do > > with thier gods
> That's what I'm saying. But now, this following paragraph, everything > changes:
> >> On the other hand, if someone, some person with brute force and a > >> following, decides that something is good for him and his gang and fuck > >> everyone else - that person could also come up with rules 6, 7, 8 and so > >> forth - and enforce those rules until, eventually, in a few generations - > >> nobody knows that anything changed - and this new regime becomes the > >> status quo.
> >> So let us say that humans evolved out of the need for any gods. Then > >> they'd have "the ruler" and what "the ruler said" - i.e., laws. Ok, the > >> congress. The house of reps. Oooo, the Supreme Court (9 fucking people > >> in black robes - HOH sound familiar?). Doesn't matter if the laws are > >> just or not. Some of our laws are ridiculous - stupid beyond measure. > >> But nonetheless, almost impossible to overturn even if the majority wants > >> them overturned - and this is SUPPOSED to be a gov of, by, and for the > >> people. Yeah, how long did THAT last? Not long.
> > That's it you see. We are supposed to be puppets; obey these stupid laws > > without question but we are thinking creatures. Though most of us aint > > Geniuses we are capable of spotting stupid laws. some rebel some don't. > > Some of us aren't sontent to be sheep.
> The ones that never intended to be sheep got connections and clout and > started to MAKE the laws, new ones - often shit that was against what people > wanted. Some people have no problem with the laws, even speeding laws - but > that wasn't my point. We are supposed to have freedom of speech here, and I > don't mean usenet. I mean professors speaking freely. They do not have it. > It's gone. There is tyranny on the horizon now - and it IS tyranny. Others > just join gangs and break the laws and don't give a shit AT ALL about laws. > They have their own laws - and they are of the jungle, for sure. That's > also no way to have a civilization or a society.
Freedom of speech is an idea but one few people are couragious enough to allow facism and tyranny aren't over the horizon, they are here under guise such as political correctness and Godwin's law. Oh the pagans love that one because it means they get to be fascist. they are as bad as the Christians.
>"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message >>>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >>>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
>>"flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote in message >>> you could. some of us did.
>"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@spampost.com>: >>There is another way to see this.
>there are many.
>>Let us say that your God is the Cosmos itself
>I'll call this hypothesis A.
>>- or the dark force in nature.
>I'll call this hypothesis B. I see no reason to >equate A with B.
>> Let us say that this god has only what is absolutely >>and literally true to tell us.
>this is confused and nonsensical. the cosmos as a >whole doesn't speak, unless you take a certain >subset's expression as the expression FOR the whole. >why you identify this as you do is anybody's guess.
It's even stranger than that. She believes she can "feel" something, and that feeling lets her know she is feeling a supposed, mindless, dark spiritual ray which is neither dark, spiritual nor a ray. Quite a lot to get out of a "feeling". One of the most significant aspects of her beliefs about this thing, is the fact that she believes it has no intelligence of its own and no ability to perform deliberate acts. She believes that it somehow "is" all intelligence for everything in the universe simultaneously however, while having no intelligence of its own.
>>This is what this god says:
>I'll evaluate this contention below.
>>1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad.
>A: the Cosmos says nothing specifically and therefore >does not say this specifically.
>B: since i have no data on this "dark force in nature" >and how it expresses anything, i see no justification >for considering 1.
Tani herself insists her supposed, mindless, dark spiritual ray which is neither dark, spiritual nor a ray has no intelligence or ability to perform deliberate acts, meaning it would be unable to express anything to anyone or even to hold any sort of ideas of its own. Unless she now thinks she disagrees with herself, in which case it would be interesting to see her explain how she thinks she does.
>above to be accurate. explain how >it is that you have come the conclusion that any "dark >force in nature" says this.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:18:40 -0500, dh@. wrote: >On 11 Mar 2008 00:07:07 GMT, lorax666 <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
>>"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message >>>>> you could just switch allegiances to a different >>>>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
>>>"flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote in message >>>> you could. some of us did.
>>"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@spampost.com>: >>>There is another way to see this.
>>there are many.
>>>Let us say that your God is the Cosmos itself
>>I'll call this hypothesis A.
>>>- or the dark force in nature.
>>I'll call this hypothesis B. I see no reason to >>equate A with B.
>>> Let us say that this god has only what is absolutely >>>and literally true to tell us.
>>this is confused and nonsensical. the cosmos as a >>whole doesn't speak, unless you take a certain >>subset's expression as the expression FOR the whole. >>why you identify this as you do is anybody's guess.
> It's even stranger than that. She believes she can >"feel" something, and that feeling lets her know she >is feeling a supposed, mindless, dark spiritual ray which >is neither dark, spiritual nor a ray. Quite a lot to get out >of a "feeling". One of the most significant aspects of >her beliefs about this thing, is the fact that she believes >it has no intelligence of its own and no ability to perform >deliberate acts. She believes that it somehow "is" all >intelligence for everything in the universe simultaneously >however, while having no intelligence of its own.
>>>This is what this god says:
>>I'll evaluate this contention below.
>>>1. Nothing is good or bad unless you think it is good or bad.
>>A: the Cosmos says nothing specifically and therefore >>does not say this specifically.
>>B: since i have no data on this "dark force in nature" >>and how it expresses anything, i see no justification >>for considering 1.
> Tani herself insists her supposed, mindless, dark spiritual >ray which is neither dark, spiritual nor a ray has no intelligence >or ability to perform deliberate acts, meaning it would be unable >to express anything to anyone or even to hold any sort of ideas >of its own. Unless she now thinks she disagrees with herself, >in which case it would be interesting to see her explain how >she thinks she does.
>>above to be accurate. explain how >>it is that you have come the conclusion that any "dark >>force in nature" says this.
> Yes, please make an attempt at least.
make an attempt to shut the fuck up... --
`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
