What is Repentance
GOD BLESS AMERICA
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.
flower of romance
"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QrdAj.3$hr3.0@trnddc04...
> What is Repentance
>
> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally means
> to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine
> sorrow
is pointless.
marques de sade
why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
must be that the Devil still has a hold on their soul... hmmm...
--
`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
flower of romance
"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:47d1d05b....@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:48:52 GMT, "flower of romance"
> <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:QrdAj.3$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? :)
marques de sade
<flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>
>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:47d1d05b....@news.sysmatrix.net...
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:48:52 GMT, "flower of romance"
>> <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:QrdAj.3$hr3.0@trnddc04...
>>>> What is Repentance
>>>>
>>>> I promised to simplify that long theological word. It literally
>>>> means
>>>> to feel a godly sorrow for the wrongs we have committed. Such genuine
>>>> sorrow
>>>
>>>is pointless.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> why don't they just don't do any wrongs in the first place...
>> must be that the Devil still has a hold on their soul... hmmm...
>
>We are incapable of "not sinning"
i don't know. in the bible it gives the impression that to be a
true christian you really have to walk the walk and not just talk
the talk... and i see not one christian walking the walk... it's
all just talk... christianity is obamesque... no substance...
>but the best part is that even though we
>were born with these "design flaws" it's still our fault.So thier god fucks
>up and we get the blame. Don't you just love devine hipocrisy? :)
they go as far as to say if a child in africa never hears about
jesus so he can't call on the name 'jesus' then he won't be
saved... what if that child never did anything wrong... don't
matter, he still will burn on hell for not calling on someone he
had no idea even existed... christianity just sucks, period...
i'm amazed people fall for this shit...
flower of romance
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:58:54 GMT, "flower of romance"
> <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:47d1d05b....@news.sysmatrix.net...
>>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:48:52 GMT, "flower of romance"
>>> <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:QrdAj.3$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...
Ridiculous, isn't it? :)
>
> i'm amazed people fall for this shit...
People still wathc x-factor too.
lorax666
>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net>:
>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
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.
nocTifer
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
Tani Jantsang©
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:47d38a6f$0$36367$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com>:
>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net>:
>>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@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.
It's here:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666c.html
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.
>
> nocTifer
> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
lorax666
>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com>:
>>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net>:
>>>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> What is Repentance
"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. 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.
>The sins are listed in my 666 article.
>... http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666c.html
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 invasive as it you are
trying to force others to accept your standards.
I maintain in comparison that whatever language is
used, the net result is that the god has given the
cultist rules to live by, and that's fine as far
as it goes. what you're doing on that page is just
setting out a paradigm of ontological (and
biological) condition differences. that's not
justified by anything i understand beyond
stereotyping and factionalizing without warrant.
comparably, i am attempting to lay out a paradigm
in which we can all worship (or refrain from worship)
and abide by any rulesets of the gods we enjoy,
fruitful humans in a polite society, without these
heavy moral or (unsubstantiated) biophysical
differences being presumed about us.
>So, if you are talking about them, there they are.
of course i am not. I am not attempting to play
along with their meanings, but instead to reside
with behaviour-oriented, neutral terms of struggle,
perceived desires on the parts of gods, etc.
>There is a group of 10 and another group of 7....
generalizing these is part of the problem. the only
ones that i can see are problematic as they are
restricted *to* a cult (religious group) are the
ones for which we're sustaining legal penalties
already in most cultures: theft, extortion, and
slander (3 out of 17 you mention there!). 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.
>>>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.
it's a whole paradigm. of course it doesn't really set
up universally. there are also god*mothers* who provide
for their worshippers extortative rulesets and
cosmologies, but these seem far fewer than godfathers.
sometimes Kali worshippers have told me that She is
very strict with them, and may even threaten them
with illness and death if they don't conform.
their choice is whether to worship Her or not, or
switch gods and engage one who is being less severe.
if they can't switch they have a psychological
problem and should conduct a doctor or the police.
maybe Kali wants them to either face a serious
hurdle or give up on Her. maybe Kali is being
seriously lenient with me comparably. I can
work with all of that quite well.
>>>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.
I don't follow your need to select one that is best.
>It says the obvious and logical truth.
perhaps you find something in one (some particular
*kind* of Judaism apparently, but you aren't even
talking about extremist conservative Jews as
compared with liberal Jews, or 'ethical culture'
atheists!) that you like. bully for you. I don't
agree that this is a reason to think of it as
'best' in an overall fashion. I prefer to just
compare their actual components and see how
functionally they might be able to be in society.
if they can't be in society politely, forbid them,
exile their cultists, and denounce their gods as
juvenile reprobates without value for the future
(compare the Japanese cultists who wanted to use
nerve gas, or the the variety of novel groups
who exercise dictatorial control over members).
>ALL people have good and bad urges.
I don't agree. it is a premise i don't buy. neither
are human urges "good" and "bad" in some generalized
sense, nor do all people have them the same way.
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. some Chinese
and Neopagan religion is like this. probably there
are factions in most religions. I don't like the
cults that start with any kind of "original sin",
for example.
note that my not liking them doesn't mean that i
oppose them as part of civilized society, i just
don't want to join them *myself*. if you or
someone else wants to be in such a cult, go ahead.
I also dispute that religion is good for children.
>You choose which to follow. Sin, the original
>meaning, means to err in logic, to not use logic.
I prefer secular evaluations of that rather than
to dwell in religious terminology that has been
twisted to hell and back, wrestling with their
language. let them call 'sin' anything that they
want to, i say. I don't mind. to my mind it just
means their god forbids it and they get to deal
with the consequences. if it is unworkable for
civilized *society* to have cults with such
godrules, then we should exclude them,
forbid them, exile them.
>That's like eastern stuff.
if you say so. my impression is that what i like
about Asian and Indian philosophy/religion is
where it intersects a reverence for the natural,
and for the natural disposition/character of
human beings. I don't like repressive regimes.
I don't find any value in trying to identify
"actual" meanings of anything. so what if some
Greeks invented words with specific meanings?
we don't have to abide by their language.
if you like it and want to hold it up as an
ideal that's hunky-dory, but i don't find that
as convincing as a functional model of how to
go about dealing with religious godrules in
a liberal society of myriad cults.
you seem to be trying to foster an escalation
of some set of godrules. I don't like that. I
think it is better to let people have their
godrules as they find them or learn them, and
then to see which of these are compatible in
a complex liberal society. this way we can
experiment and explore different rulesets
from different gods and watch how the cults
turn out through time. are they all fucked
up and repressed? or do they generally have
happier lives? let people choose which cult
they want to join and do so.
also, i think the forbidding of inculcation
of children to cults and godrules might be
helpful to the children (zones of remediation
here are obviously options -- circumcision is
a kind of violation, for example, which cannot
be reversed, and neither can restriction from
modern technology and medicine; but abstaining
from oranges or shrimp in diet is remediable
and a child can, having become an adult,
select away from the cult and it'll be fine).
your comments and arguments welcomed. :)
nocTifer
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva - Gospel of Satan! http://gospel-of-satan.com
Dumbledore: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but
why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" - J.K. Rowling.
Tani Jantsang©
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> blessed beast!
:), to you too - see inside.
>
>>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com>:
>>>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net>:
>>>>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>
> "GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@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).
>
> 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).
LOL. That's funny! I'll tell you, decades ago when I handed out a version
of DDocs tailored to Christians - they went out of their way to GET hold of
Greek grammar books and learn that language so that they could understand
what's really being said in that book, not what some 10 times over
translator said.
Keep in mind, they believe God wrote it. They know people translated it and
they know that people with a real bias translated it later on, more so than
in the early beginnings. I should have asked for a % of the profits for
that - all those books!
>
> 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.
Well, that's asking them to question their maker, as they believe they were
made. Who is the clay to question the sculptor, or something like that.
Rarely do they do this.
Imo, Catholics made do with it rather than change the text TOO much. That's
why they invented "confession" where all is forgiven. I think they go there
every week? LOL.
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.
I think most Atheists have no use for any gods, nice ones or despotic ones.
Neither do I, btw.
>
> 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.
Not my god. I think people SHOULD kill under certain circumstances.
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.
That's their history, though. It still is, sans the violence these days -
at least for Chrsitians. Not so for Moslems.
> we can restrict society to accepting civilized gods.
> and the Jewish god(s) isn't always very civilized.
No wonder they don't have a devil. With a god like that - PHEW. HAAA.
But this is not the doing of gods. It's the doing of PEOPLE, of RULERS.
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.
LOL - yeah. How about the times their God TOLD them to do total genocide.
Gotta love that one.
>
>>The sins are listed in my 666 article.
>>... http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666c.html
>
> no they aren't. there is no Ur "sinset".
HAAAAAAAA, ok, you got me good there. Shit. It's called "another look at
CHRISTIANITY." It applies to only that religion.
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 invasive as it you are
> trying to force others to accept your standards.
LMAO, no, it's up there since so many people wanted to know about it - and
what the hell, there's a weird theory on the 666 thing in there. It's in
the 666 section of the site. Those are definitely not my standards, btw.
What I DO realize as obvious is that a whole heap of people were DOING those
things - or else they'd never have thought up those things to call them
"sins." They must have disrupted the society big time.
In societies where no one knows what stealing is - there won't be found a
rule that says you shouldn't steal. So, their society must have been FILLED
with people doing that stuff - and it must have also been disruptive.
>
> I maintain in comparison that whatever language is
> used, the net result is that the god has given the
> cultist rules to live by, and that's fine as far
> as it goes.
Uh, my take is that some leader made up the rules, obviously to have a more
orderly and peaceful society where a heap of that stuff was going on and
disrupting things. :) That, imo, is obvious.
what you're doing on that page is just
> setting out a paradigm of ontological (and
> biological) condition differences. that's not
> justified by anything i understand beyond
> stereotyping and factionalizing without warrant.
No, I'm not doing that. And Christians that got hold of that decades before
anyone into satanism heard of me or the DDocs - were VERY appreciative of
that. As I said, I should have asked % of profits for at least one store I
know that had to try to get hold of HEAPS of Greek books, ancient Greek.
>
> comparably, i am attempting to lay out a paradigm
> in which we can all worship (or refrain from worship)
> and abide by any rulesets of the gods we enjoy,
> fruitful humans in a polite society, without these
> heavy moral or (unsubstantiated) biophysical
> differences being presumed about us.
LOL, well, that might be hard to do when the God demands that his people
kill infedels, heretics, Christians and Jews (heretics) and so forth. It is
already hard to do with people harassing others with their beliefs. Or when
Reverend Hagee types are around and getting bigger.
No, they do not harass me - but I ran into it a few times in my life.
Unfortunately, you are not the president or anyone in power that COULD lay
out such a paradigm.
>
>>So, if you are talking about them, there they are.
>
> of course i am not. I am not attempting to play
> along with their meanings, but instead to reside
> with behaviour-oriented, neutral terms of struggle,
> perceived desires on the parts of gods, etc.
>
>>There is a group of 10 and another group of 7....
>
> generalizing these is part of the problem. the only
> ones that i can see are problematic as they are
> restricted *to* a cult (religious group) are the
> ones for which we're sustaining legal penalties
> already in most cultures: theft, extortion, and
> slander (3 out of 17 you mention there!).
Oh? Theft of MY tax dollars for shit that I do not want and never voted
for. That's theft. Theft of my tax dollars to give "charity" to people I'd
rather see just die of whatever ails them, war or whatever. That's theft.
GRAND theft. Extortion - what insurance companies do. You left out murder.
That's in all cultures, too.
Sure, a lot of that got made into laws - secular laws. Some of our laws
make no sense. Decriminalize drugs and prostitution. That would make a LOT
of sense. It would save money, MAKE us money, decrease crime - and a heap
of other benefits to society.
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'd have to go reread them myself, I don't know remember them all. Lemme go
look.
OK - these are in the lawbooks:
5. KLEPTAI: A robber of personal property.
6. HARPAGES: Extortioners. Separate from kleptai. A usurer.
8. METHYSOI: Those who are intoxicated, brain-numbed in the senses due to
drugs they take in order to numb the senses. Does not mean a drink of wine
with meal (obviously), since Jesus drank wine in moderation.
9. LOIDOROI: Slanderers, revilers a person who tells UN-true things of
another, obviously out of malice. (that one is hardly ever enforced - and
you have to have been monitarily harmed or something to actually bother with
it).
The thing is, the next 7, which I named in English, are INNER, the whole
intent (and it's in there, loud and clear) is INNER. It has little to do
with actions. More to do with desires.
>
>>>>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.
>
> it's a whole paradigm. of course it doesn't really set
> up universally. there are also god*mothers* who provide
> for their worshippers extortative rulesets and
> cosmologies, but these seem far fewer than godfathers.
But you do understand that they used to LITERALLY kill you - as the Moslems
do. It was anti Christians that fought tooth and nail against these people
and changed all this.
>
> sometimes Kali worshippers have told me that She is
> very strict with them, and may even threaten them
> with illness and death if they don't conform.
> their choice is whether to worship Her or not, or
> switch gods and engage one who is being less severe.
> if they can't switch they have a psychological
> problem and should conduct a doctor or the police.
See, that's how you see that. I'd regard such a person that said
that/thought that as a nut and dismiss him or her. That fast. I have never
had religion or spirituality like that, not ever, not even as a kid. It's
my opionion.
>
> maybe Kali wants them to either face a serious
> hurdle or give up on Her. maybe Kali is being
> seriously lenient with me comparably. I can
> work with all of that quite well.
>
>>>>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.
>
> I don't follow your need to select one that is best.
Well, I need only look at how successful Jews are in any society they are
in. Whatever they are doing - it's damned good. That's how I arrive at
that. It's practical.
>
>>It says the obvious and logical truth.
>
> perhaps you find something in one (some particular
> *kind* of Judaism apparently, but you aren't even
> talking about extremist conservative Jews as
> compared with liberal Jews, or 'ethical culture'
> atheists!) that you like. bully for you. I don't
> agree that this is a reason to think of it as
> 'best' in an overall fashion. I prefer to just
> compare their actual components and see how
> functionally they might be able to be in society.
YES, that's what I did. Look at them in society. They are a tiny minority
that rises to the top in EVERYTHING they endeavor to do. They are the story
of a success. I don't like how they underminded the Gentile society - but
even in that - BOY that was a success, too. BIG success. They have the
best strategy when they are inside of other societies. Whether or not they
have a good strategy off all alone in Israel - that remains to be seen!
Imo, I think that was stupid of them.
> if they can't be in society politely, forbid them,
> exile their cultists, and denounce their gods as
> juvenile reprobates without value for the future
We should do that with Moslems - and so should Europeans. They can't be in
polite society. They don't want to be either. We love life too much . They
love death. Therefore, they will win. THEY SAID that. Apparently, western
countries are TOO polite to remove them.
> (compare the Japanese cultists who wanted to use
> nerve gas, or the the variety of novel groups
> who exercise dictatorial control over members).
>
>>ALL people have good and bad urges.
>
> I don't agree. it is a premise i don't buy. neither
> are human urges "good" and "bad" in some generalized
> sense, nor do all people have them the same way.
Bad is what is bad for you. Good is what is good for you. Simple.
> 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).
some Chinese
> and Neopagan religion is like this. probably there
> are factions in most religions. I don't like the
> cults that start with any kind of "original sin",
> for example.
Neither do I. I regard it as child abuse to preach it.
>
> note that my not liking them doesn't mean that i
> oppose them as part of civilized society, i just
> don't want to join them *myself*. if you or
> someone else wants to be in such a cult, go ahead.
> I also dispute that religion is good for children.
Agree about religion and children.
>
>>You choose which to follow. Sin, the original
>>meaning, means to err in logic, to not use logic.
>
> I prefer secular evaluations of that rather than
> to dwell in religious terminology that has been
> twisted to hell and back, wrestling with their
> language. let them call 'sin' anything that they
> want to, i say. I don't mind. to my mind it just
> means their god forbids it and they get to deal
> with the consequences. if it is unworkable for
> civilized *society* to have cults with such
> godrules, then we should exclude them,
> forbid them, exile them.
AGREE.
>
>>That's like eastern stuff.
>
> if you say so. my impression is that what i like
> about Asian and Indian philosophy/religion is
> where it intersects a reverence for the natural,
> and for the natural disposition/character of
> human beings.
That is true of the eastern religions - but let's have a look at the real
eastern political systems, the rules of those countries. Heh. WHOLE
different picture there.
> I don't like repressive regimes.
MOST Asian and Indian regimes ARE repressive and despotic, by the way.
> I don't find any value in trying to identify
> "actual" meanings of anything. so what if some
> Greeks invented words with specific meanings?
> we don't have to abide by their language.
No, WE do not, but Christians were highly appreciative of that information.
I'm not one of them. Neither are you.
>
> if you like it and want to hold it up as an
> ideal that's hunky-dory, but i don't find that
> as convincing as a functional model of how to
> go about dealing with religious godrules in
> a liberal society of myriad cults.
>
> you seem to be trying to foster an escalation
> of some set of godrules.
No, I simply wrote an article, originally for Christians that appreciated it
greatly. I'm not trying to DO anything. You should know me better than
that. I don't give a shit what ANYONE does, so long as they don't fuck up
my shit, my piece of peace.
I don't like that. I
> think it is better to let people have their
> godrules as they find them or learn them, and
> then to see which of these are compatible in
> a complex liberal society. this way we can
> experiment and explore different rulesets
> from different gods and watch how the cults
> turn out through time. are they all fucked
> up and repressed? or do they generally have
> happier lives? let people choose which cult
> they want to join and do so.
What results in the "happier lives" with a lot of Christian evangelicals is
the network they set up. Heh, I kinda got in on that due to my rental
agent - who's their reverend, LOL. Saved me thousands of bucks. That tends
to make people VERY happy :)
They get into this community thing, which makes them happy. That's the
dynamic there. It's not just religion at all.
>
> also, i think the forbidding of inculcation
> of children to cults and godrules might be
> helpful to the children (zones of remediation
> here are obviously options -- circumcision is
> a kind of violation, for example, which cannot
> be reversed, and neither can restriction from
> modern technology and medicine; but abstaining
> from oranges or shrimp in diet is remediable
> and a child can, having become an adult,
> select away from the cult and it'll be fine).
I agree with the children thing. But you know, you and I are nobody to make
the rules - and what we want pretty much amounts to nothing but a convo on
usenet! We can't change society.
>
> your comments and arguments welcomed. :)
You too. I'm home cuz of weather and Phil's REALLY sick. Nice day, but too
cold for beach.
A clue-in tho for future - never assume I advocate something merely because
it's on our website. Not the case. It's just information.
flower of romance
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com>:
>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net>:
>>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@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?
>
>>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.
you could. some of us did.
>
> nocTifer
> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
Tani Jantsang©
"flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote in message
news:qr1Bj.3607$5i5....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> news:47d38a6f$0$36367$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> nocTifer
>> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
>
>
lorax666
>>>>>>>> What is Repentance[?]
"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@spampost.com>:
> Isn't that a fancy word for "I'm sorry?"...
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.
"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@spampost.com>:
>>>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):
Protestant = 66
Roman Catholic = 73
Greek Orthodox = 76
Ethiopian Orthodox = 81
>>>>>> 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, and the same goes
for all the rest of us. what we individually mean
is the most important part. those who can't keep up
with this can be left behind as imbecles.
I am explaining what i mean by sin at the outset
(breaking of your god's rules). by this logic if
you have no god or your god provides no rules,
then you, like me, are incapable of sinning. it
is liberating to some to know that this is the
case. since i didn't get brainwashed into believing
that i was sinning at any time (the terms 'sin' and
'evil' weren't part of my vocabulary or my parent's
vocabularies when i was growing up), i don't have
that particular problem. since i met and married my
God She has provided me with no rules, so i don't
ever sin. like you i sometimes make errors or do
things for which i may wish to make amends. note
that i love to please my God, so it wouldn't be
likely that i'd sin in a theological sense anyway.
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.
oh they can refer to whatever they want in determining
what their god forbids them from doing. I don't mind.
> I mean, Christians do that all the time, they refer
> to the "authority" of the OT or whatever.
yes, for them it is an authority. fine by me generally.
> Well - it helps to know what the book actually
> SAYS - AND MEANS.
it helps them, yes. it doesn't help me because that is
not my authority. they *should* thank you for trying
to get to the most relevant meanings of their scripture.
they probably won't thank me for helping them to become
more humble and less arrogant.
my scripture doesn't even feature my god in it, and it
certainly doesn't include dictation to me about what is
right and good. it *does* feature a fictional "Satan"
indicating how to gods might determine which is best
(stolen from the classical poet, John Milton, in his
'Paradise Lost' of which this gospel was a reflection):
"What manner of godliness this?
To demand submission without condition,
To subordinate power to an half-pint upstart,
To dictate on high a slavery complete,
Without knowing and testing the authority thereof?
Wherefore is the sense in you celestial invaders,
That you submit your necks
And choose to bend the supple knee?"
and
"Know you not your true heritage?
Be ye instructed therefore.
We were self-begot, self-raised,
Our puissance is our own,
Our own right hand
Shall teach us of the best deeds.
By proof try who is our equal!"
from the Gospel of Satan
at http://www.gospel-of-satan.com/
accessed 3/10/08
>> 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.
it is completely logical and follows from the
premises that coincide with their expression
absent all the claptrap with which i don't agree.
it is a means of affording all present some respect.
>> 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.
thus 'in relation to expression'.
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).
>> ...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 went out of their way to GET hold of Greek
> grammar books and learn that language so that they
> could understand what's really being said in that
> book, not what some 10 times over translator said.
naturally. the Jehovah's Witnesses are fanatic about it.
that doesn't stop your calling their term usage 'bullshit'
being disrespectful and terminologically controlling. you
make a valuable point insofar as it extends, but for any
who don't have an interest in trying to research it back
to some Ur sinset (or who disagree with your conclusions),
it won't fly.
>Keep in mind, they believe God wrote it....
a good number seem to, yes, or at least that their god
inspired humans who wrote it. the dimmest of them think
that their god penned it with a stylus of flame.
>> 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.
>
>Well, that's asking them to question their maker,
I'm not asking them to do anything, just presenting to
them what it is that i think about the situation. they
may or may not question anything at all. I don't give
any attention to their perspective or their wrangling
unless i am being charitable in public and even more
rarely in private.
> ...as they believe they were made.
yes. we've covered this in usenet along with the atheists.
I don't see any evidence for anything originating at any
time from any originating agent. show me some if you have
some evidence of it. let them believe what they want.
the theists who rest their beliefs on faith (irrational
belief in the face of contrary observed evidence)
are in no way convincing to me. the atheists who
restrict their observations to objects are in no
way convincing to me.
>Who is the clay to question the sculptor, or
>something like that....
with that premise, there is some logic there, yes.
>> 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.
>
> I think most Atheists have no use for any gods,
> nice ones or despotic ones. Neither do I, btw.
agreed, but that isn't my point. if we're living in
a society with such people, then it behooves us all
to winnow out those who are compatible with us and
identify them as 'fit for civilized society' and
refuse the others to the burning heap of gehennom.
in other words, we ought to choose which of them to
seriously oppose and ignore the rest if that is our
interest, because some of them are having political
effects, and ignoring these is to all our detriment.
you single out the Muslims. I think that's mistaken.
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.
>
> 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."
>> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
>> we can restrict society to accepting civilized gods.
>> and the Jewish god(s) isn't always very civilized.
>
> No wonder they don't have a devil. With a god
> like that....
it became an issue for Jews of various types, yes,
so much so that numerous of them became atheists
and a batch became Christian dualists. cf. Russell.
>> ...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.
note that this is my methodology of god-identification.
I am not saying that they can prove it, only that we
should treat the cult as representing the god which
they worship. let every cult be presumed to worship
a different god, even if they identify it as being
the same god as some other cult.
>>>>>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.
>
> 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.
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.
>> 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.
>
> LOL - yeah. How about the times their God TOLD
> them to do total genocide....
there are such stories. I consider them folktales,
but hold their god and cult responsible for any
behaviour on the part of its cultists in which
violence and forceful conversion is operant. cults
which feature and promote books clearly indicating
that the cultists should be advocating and
perpetrating violence against others and forced
conversions should be forbidden, outlawed. that's
not *religions*, but religious groups individually
(what i am consistently referring to as 'cults').
>>>The sins are listed in my 666 article.
>>>... http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666c.html
>>
>> no they aren't. there is no Ur "sinset".
>
> ...It's called "another look at CHRISTIANITY."
> It applies to only that religion.
to certain cults within that religion, yes.
> ...a whole heap of people were DOING those things
> - or else they'd never have thought up those things
> to call them "sins." ...
agreed. I can even see the value in forbidding sins.
those who are part of their cult can adopt the idea
that their god forbids sins and that's fine. once
they start being imperialistic and trying to foist
off their god and godrules on the rest of us,
however, i oppose it as unfounded and uncivilized
as it takes up force and violence to achieve it.
> They must have disrupted the society big time.
maybe so. we may be able to learn from the list.
>> I maintain in comparison that whatever language is
>> used, the net result is that the god has given the
>> cultist rules to live by, and that's fine as far
>> as it goes.
>
> Uh, my take is that some leader made up the rules....
that is also my take, though i allow for the fact that
the leader might have interacted with what he perceived
to be his god and passed on the godrules. if the cult
says that the god made the rules and gave them to the
leader(s), then i will accept that and move on to make
the leader, cult, and the god responsible for them. in
all future manifestations of cults of the same name i
would then subject them to a litmus about violence and
forced conversions in order to allow them by law.
>> comparably, i am attempting to lay out a paradigm
>> in which we can all worship (or refrain from worship)
>> and abide by any rulesets of the gods we enjoy,
>> fruitful humans in a polite society, without these
>> heavy moral or (unsubstantiated) biophysical
>> differences being presumed about us.
>
> LOL, well, that might be hard to do when the God
> demands that his people kill infedels, heretics,
> Christians and Jews (heretics) and so forth.
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?
> 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.
> Unfortunately, you are not the president or
> anyone in power that COULD lay out such a
> paradigm.
I am already doing so in writing here, which is
where we are discussing it. that's all that i'm
talking about. I don't need to be any president
to describe what i find workable and realistic.
I only care about usenet and you at this time.
>>>So, if you are talking about them, there they are.
>>
>> of course i am not. I am not attempting to play
>> along with their meanings, but instead to reside
>> with behaviour-oriented, neutral terms of struggle,
>> perceived desires on the parts of gods, etc.
>>
>>>There is a group of 10 and another group of 7....
>>
>> generalizing these is part of the problem. the only
>> ones that i can see are problematic as they are
>> restricted *to* a cult (religious group) are the
>> ones for which we're sustaining legal penalties
>> already in most cultures: theft, extortion, and
>> slander (3 out of 17 you mention there!).
>
>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. you are
merely redefining terms to fit your arguments.
as i said, i'm focussing on actions for which we
are currently sustaining legal penalties already
in most cultures: theft, extortion, and slander
in a conventional (not unusual) sense.
> ...Extortion - what insurance companies do.
ridiculous.
> You left out murder. That's in all cultures, too.
again, i don't agree to your redefinition of terms
and those are not what i am talking about with
respect to the above assertions re 'sins'.
>.... 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.
>> 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.
>OK - these are in the lawbooks:
>5. KLEPTAI: A robber of personal property.
>6. HARPAGES: Extortioners. Separate from kleptai. A usurer.
agreed to here.
>8. METHYSOI: Those who are intoxicated, brain-numbed in the senses due to
>drugs they take in order to numb the senses. Does not mean a drink of wine
>with meal (obviously), since Jesus drank wine in moderation.
by itself i have no problems with this one.
>9. LOIDOROI: Slanderers, revilers a person who tells UN-true things of
>another, obviously out of malice. (that one is hardly ever enforced - and
>you have to have been monitarily harmed or something to actually bother
>with it).
agreed to slander.
>The thing is, the next 7, which I named in English, are
>INNER.... More to do with desires.
right, that's in part why i oppose outlawing them.
let the cults and their gods forbid them if they
so choose.
>>>>>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.
>>
>> it's a whole paradigm. of course it doesn't really set
>> up universally. there are also god*mothers* who provide
>> for their worshippers extortative rulesets and
>> cosmologies, but these seem far fewer than godfathers.
>
>But you do understand that they used to ....
I don't care what is supposed about what used to happen.
>> sometimes Kali worshippers have told me that She is
>> very strict with them, and may even threaten them
>> with illness and death if they don't conform.
>> their choice is whether to worship Her or not, or
>> switch gods and engage one who is being less severe.
>> if they can't switch they have a psychological
>> problem and should conduct a doctor or the police.
>
>See, that's how you see that.
if they came to me and asked my advice, that is what
i would suggest to them, yes. the doctor if it is a
problem with the god (directly), and the police if
it is a problem with the cult or its leaders.
>I'd regard such a person that said that/thought
>that as a nut and dismiss him or her....
yes we have a similar way of handling them. I don't
have to evaluate them. if their problem was with a
cult leader, then they may not be so much a nut,
as a dupe and exceedingly impressionable.
>>>>>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.
> ...how successful Jews are in any society they are
> in....
there are too many meters of success for me to agree
with such a generalization.
>>>It says the obvious and logical truth.
>>
>> perhaps you find something in one (some particular
>> *kind* of Judaism apparently, but you aren't even
>> talking about extremist conservative Jews as
>> compared with liberal Jews, or 'ethical culture'
>> atheists!) that you like. bully for you. I don't
>> agree that this is a reason to think of it as
>> 'best' in an overall fashion. I prefer to just
>> compare their actual components and see how
>> functionally they might be able to be in society.
>
> ...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.
>> if they can't be in society politely, forbid them,
>> exile their cultists, and denounce their gods as
>> juvenile reprobates without value for the future
>
>We should do that with Moslems - and so should
>Europeans. ....
I disagree because i have known peaceable Muslims.
all of them 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 can't be in polite society....
I think your generalizations are outrageous.
> Apparently, western countries are TOO polite
> to remove them.
no specific group should be treated to that kind
of prejudicial exclusion. the treatment which they
should receive should be based on their expression
and behaviour on a routine and persistant basis.
there are a spectrum of cultists in each religion.
>> (compare the Japanese cultists who wanted to use
>> nerve gas, or the the variety of novel groups
>> who exercise dictatorial control over members).
>>
>>>ALL people have good and bad urges.
>>
>> I don't agree. it is a premise i don't buy. neither
>> are human urges "good" and "bad" in some generalized
>> sense, nor do all people have them the same way.
>
>Bad is what is bad for you. Good is what is good
>for you. Simple.
too simple, not workable.
>> 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.
>> some Chinese
>> and Neopagan religion is like this. probably there
>> are factions in most religions. I don't like the
>> cults that start with any kind of "original sin",
>> for example.
>
>Neither do I. I regard it as child abuse to preach it.
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.
>> 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.
>> I don't find any value in trying to identify
>> "actual" meanings of anything. so what if some
>> Greeks invented words with specific meanings?
>> we don't have to abide by their language.
>
> No, WE do not, but Christians were highly
> appreciative of that information.
some might be, yes. they don't regard you as their
authorities. lots have their own scholars who say
what they want to hear and that's fine with me.
>I'm not one of them. Neither are you.
which is why i don't care much what their authorities
say about what constitutes "the godrules". they can
find or make up theirs as they please, that's fine.
>> if you like it and want to hold it up as an
>> ideal that's hunky-dory, but i don't find that
>> as convincing as a functional model of how to
>> go about dealing with religious godrules in
>> a liberal society of myriad cults.
>>
>> you seem to be trying to foster an escalation
>> of some set of godrules.
>
> No, I simply wrote an article, originally for
> Christians that appreciated it greatly. I'm
> not trying to DO anything....
you were using it to argue what repentance was.
I don't find the godruleset convincing for me.
some Christians might like it. great.
>...I don't give a shit what ANYONE does,
> so long as they don't fuck up my shit,
> my piece of peace.
their ruleset isn't yours, so your essay isn't
going to be helpful in determining your repenting.
>> I think it is better to let people have their
>> godrules as they find them or learn them, and
>> then to see which of these are compatible in
>> a complex liberal society. this way we can
>> experiment and explore different rulesets
>> from different gods and watch how the cults
>> turn out through time. are they all fucked
>> up and repressed? or do they generally have
>> happier lives? let people choose which cult
>> they want to join and do so.
>
>What results in the "happier lives" with a lot
>of Christian evangelicals is the network they
>set up....
indeed, mutual support is one of the benefits of
religious communities. it is one of the things i
think that seculars, atheists, Neopagans and
Satanists can benefit from constructing on the
basis of nonviolence and nonintrusiveness.
> ...you and I are nobody to make the rules
that doesn't stop us from expressing ourselves.
> - and what we want pretty much amounts to
> nothing but a convo on usenet! We can't
> change society.
"Choose your limitations and they're yours."
-- Richard Bach, _Illusions_.
> ...never assume I advocate something merely
> because it's on our website....
I can do little else when we are discussing a
topic and you point to a web page claiming it
is pertinent to that conversation. if you do
not think it is pertinent make that more
plain please.
lorax666
>"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
>>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net>:
>>>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>>>>>"GOD BLESS AMERICA" <marenys...@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.
>>>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.
>
>you could. some of us did.
feel free to do just that.
nocTifer
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
lorax666
>>> god. that way the "sin" set would also change.
>"flower of romance" <flo...@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.
>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?
speculation is baseless and endless.
> Anarchy leads to gangs....
try anarchism then, which is different.
> ..."tit for tat" doesn't always work out....
quite so.
nocTifer
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
flower of romance
"Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
news:13t9cmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote in message
> news:qr1Bj.3607$5i5....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
>> news:47d38a6f$0$36367$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> nocTifer
>>> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
>>
>>
>
>
marques de sade
<flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>"Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
>news:13t9cmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>> 2. All things are permitted,
>True you
>could go on a killing spree and get gunned down for your troubles but you
>took the shit of no'one. ;)
if you're gonna die, die with your boots on if you're gonna die...
Tani Jantsang©
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> "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" <flo...@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.
>
>>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.
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?
>
> speculation is baseless and endless.
Yup.
>
>> Anarchy leads to gangs....
>
> try anarchism then, which is different.
>
>> ..."tit for tat" doesn't always work out....
>
> quite so.
You snipped it. Tish.
>
> nocTifer
> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
Tani Jantsang©
a bit sleepy, so... :)
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:47d575d2$0$36349$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> are you fighting any wars?
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 dwell on it for more than 5 minutes. It's
gone, done. Sorry about that. Period. If I can FIX it, I will. If not,
then move on.
Btw, I advocate decriminalizing prostitution and drugs not because I indulge
in any of it or know anyone that does. I advocate it because of the CRIME
and waste of MY MONEY fighting something (war on it) that can not be fought.
Also, because the income from these jobs does NOT get taxed at all. It
should. Logic.
Tani Jantsang©
>
> "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
> news:13t9cmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "flower of romance" <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote in message
>> news:qr1Bj.3607$5i5....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
>>> news:47d38a6f$0$36367$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>> 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
> 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.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> nocTifer
>>>> luckymojo.com@nagasiva
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
starr
marques de sade wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:11:21 GMT, "flower of romance"
> <flo...@inthattick.com> wrote:
>
> >"Tani Jantsang�" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
> >news:13t9cmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> 2. All things are permitted,
>
> >True you
> >could go on a killing spree and get gunned down for your troubles but you
> >took the shit of no'one. ;)
>
> if you're gonna die, die with your boots on if you're gonna die...
I don't care if I'm in bare feet as long as i am heavily armed. :)
starr
> "flower of romance" <flow...@inthattick.com> wrote in messagenews:J6kBj.1407$334....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com> wrote in message
> >news:13t9cmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >>news:qr1Bj.3607$5i5....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >>> "lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> >>>news:47d38a6f$0$36367$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> >>>> 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.
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.
>
>
I did? where?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> > All too familier
>
> Yes - and here we are today :)
Absolutely
>
> >> 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.
>
>
>
>
> >>>> nocTifer
> >>>> luckymojo.com@nagasiva- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dh
>"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" <flo...@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.
marques de sade
make an attempt to shut the fuck up...
dh
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:18:40 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On 11 Mar 2008 00:07:07 GMT, lorax666 <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
>>
>>>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...
Obviously you don't think she can do it either,
but it would still be fun to see her try. Try Tani, try:
Jack Slutmuffin
for sure. And many times cheaper. Plus he lies far more than he ever
tells the truth. Come to think of it, that's kind of a shitty god, but
in shitty times why not go for broke!
That all all the constant weird synchronicities reverifying my good
choice in particular personal saviors no matter how short in
duration.
I have others, some I made up on the fly. But that might just be
because of growing up as a stoopid chaos majikiaen.
dh
>My gawd is a clip-art salesman.
Tani's is a supposed, mindless, dark spiritual ray which is
neither dark, spiritual nor a ray
>As real as any flying spagetti monster
>for sure. And many times cheaper. Plus he lies far more than he ever
>tells the truth.
Tani's god (or whatever) has no intelligence and is incapable
of performing any deliberate acts. That being the case, it would
be interesting and/or amusing to see Tani try explaining how she
thinks it could say anything to anyone.
>Come to think of it, that's kind of a shitty god, but
>in shitty times why not go for broke!
>
>That all all the constant weird synchronicities reverifying my good
>choice in particular personal saviors no matter how short in
>duration.
>
>I have others, some I made up on the fly. But that might just be
>because of growing up as a stoopid chaos majikiaen.
Probably, yes.
lorax666
"Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com>:
>>>Well, the person "feels wrong" about what he/she did,
>>>with this definition. Emphasis on "feel."
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
>> 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).
"Tani Jantsang©" <tjs...@spampost.com>:
>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.
demonstrating my point: it's godrules, and sometimes churches
are conflicted on them. this is especially true when the rules
the god ostensibly selects run counter to natural urges (which
i class with an ascetic spiritual tack). maybe all them years
you been infuenced by Buddhists has got you going anti-Indian.
your notions of 'force' are not sound, by my estimation,
and so i leave that conversation (and most political
discussion with you) out.
>> 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.
by 'state' i meant nation. your choice not to shift
countries is part of how you continue to participate
in the problems that you're helping to make and are
complaining about. very similar to the fellow that i
was talking with in IRC who said that since his
family immigrated only recently he wasn't responsible
for the historical actions of the US decimating and
betraying the Africans and Natives and so should not
have to contribute toward any reparations. ridiculous.
>> their ruleset isn't yours, so your essay isn't
>> going to be helpful in determining your repenting.
>
>I don't repent....
you do by my explained meaning, which is why i posted it.
Tani Jantsang©
"lorax666" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
>>"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.
>
> demonstrating my point: it's godrules, and sometimes churches
> are conflicted on them. this is especially true when the rules
> the god ostensibly selects run counter to natural urges (which
> i class with an ascetic spiritual tack).
Well, that's part of my huge "whatever." I don't care about it, or care
about stupid people that give a shit about things like that.
maybe all them years
> you been infuenced by Buddhists has got you going anti-Indian.
Anti Indian? HUH? I'm not anti Indian.
>
> your notions of 'force' are not sound, by my estimation,
> and so i leave that conversation (and most political
> discussion with you) out.
OK. My notions of force are very simple and quick - Tatar style. War is
war. Get it over with - FAST. Vanquish an enemy completely, thoroughly.
Then go back to peace and living life with joy, never to be plagued by that
enemy again.
>
>>> 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.
>
> by 'state' i meant nation. your choice not to shift
> countries is part of how you continue to participate
> in the problems that you're helping to make and are
> complaining about.
Actually, the problems are being made by people NOT doing what the voters
voted then in and pay their salaries to do. That's the problem. Solution?
Overthrow the gov. Or - vote them out again and again. Other nations are
as bad if not worse than this one.
very similar to the fellow that i
> was talking with in IRC who said that since his
> family immigrated only recently he wasn't responsible
> for the historical actions of the US decimating and
> betraying the Africans and Natives and so should not
> have to contribute toward any reparations. ridiculous.
Africans already got their reparations in the form of BEING HERE and not
being in the hell hole called Africa under the oxymoron called "black rule."
They got reparations in the form of decades of putlic dole programs that
they, most of them, or too many of them, threw away and wasted. Some of
their own people say this openly, honestly. Reparations to Natives? The
Americans fought wars with them - and they lost. Period. I don't believe
in reparations AT ALL. Do you hear me screaming that the Russians give
reparations to the Tatars? Hmm, for what? LOL. I can dream up some
imagined grievance and play victim, sure thing. It's bullshit. You won't
hear me say that. It's ridiculous.
I was the first of my generation born here and my people had absolutely
nothing to do with Africans at any time, or with Amerindians. I owe them
nothing. Nothing can make me FEEL as if I do, either. If anything,
Africans owe ME and many people I knew due to the wreckage they wrought in a
once very nice city. I can't believe the Anglos just let them do shit like
that. Some fierce warriors those Anglos (NOT).
Now we have "black liberation theology" - something Obama's preacher
preached a heap of. Fine - SEGREGATE - that would solve a heap of non-issue
"problems" that will forever plague this nation. That is THE solution to
it. When they preach about murdering whites in order to be free - heh -
well, I would love to see the bloodshed if they had to live under Chinese
rule. They'd last one generation and be gone.
I'd forcibly give them the huge state of California - make them go there,
live there, let that be their NATION and then sever it from the USA. Good
riddance. Problem SOLVED. Problem FINISHED. Fast. That is what I would
DO. If ya don't like that? Don't ask or bring it up.
>
>>> their ruleset isn't yours, so your essay isn't
>>> going to be helpful in determining your repenting.
>>
>>I don't repent....
>
> you do by my explained meaning, which is why i posted it.
No, I don't repent - and imo, that's a shitty word for "ooops, I goofed,
sorry about that."