In defence of Ted W
Randy D
insulted or offended by anything he has said. I thought we were
supposed to accept others. His beliefs and convictions are completely
reasonable and understandable. Does this create fear within you?
tedw
Thanks Randy. It will be interesting to see what kind of response you
get.
I predict insults .
Tim
Hmm - Why is it the both of you overlook the fact that a half truth
(which avails nothing) was spoken? Those in the recovery movement are
indeed expected to accept everyone, but we are also under no
obligation to like anyone. And you both knew this but ommitted it.
I hope you're not insulted by these facts or left with too much fear
for your riding in here on a high horse and then riding out with your
horse muttering 'gee wilbur, someone's got our fucking number.'
F.H.
> I hope you're not insulted by these facts or left with too much fear
> for your riding in here on a high horse and then riding out with your
> horse muttering 'gee wilbur, someone's got our fucking number.'
Heh, kinda like a visual, I could *hear* old Mr. Ed.
Tim and Lisa
"tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:de9cbab0-2d39-4f7a...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
I predict insults .
Why insults?
freedumb
I do not like the christian government telling me how to live.
People have their beliefs that is their freedom.
Telling me how to use my body is supposed to be mine.
Mocking me and not allowing me heathcare is what christian society is
guilty of.
I beleive we need civil war until I am allowed the use of my body as I
see fit.
I want a monitoring device out of my back christians stuck there
fulfilling their paranoid delusions.
Period.
Randy D
Are you that naive? Are you new here? But don't take our word for it.
Watch what follows. Intolerance by those who promote understanding
and tolerance. It's an old story.
The Nolalu Barn Owl
Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
Mark Warner
We're shallow that way.
--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS Linux v6.5
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying
jimbo
> Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
Cuz he has "The Power."
Jimbo
tedw
> On 07 Apr 2008 02:33:40 GMT, buddyb...@bungholeo.com(Buddy Butt)
>
>
> I'll agree his posts can be funny. He's the groups clown, and
> everyone likes a clown, right? I'll have to admit that he does get
> some on topic threads started, even if he's almost always posting
> something negative about the program. He keeps everyone on their toes
> in this group. And no, he does not incite fear in me. He's the kind
> of guy who you call an asshole, but somehow you kind of feel sorry for
> him. I'd rather read his nonsense than some of the nasty flame wars
> that start on newsgroups, as well as all the politics that seem to
> saturate damn near every group.
I've posted quite a few positive things about the AA program. I am
generally in agreement
with the intent of the steps and I believe it used to be a good
program. It's not my fault
the program has become corrupted from the original Godly principles.
tedw
Intolerance by those who promote understanding and tolerance is a good
descripton of
many of the hypocrites here. If the shoe fits wear it.
nipntuk
Because for every tedw related post, five cents is donated to sex changes for
TG children.
freedumb
> people get sober. It dont matter what these people believe as far as
> religion, dont matter what their sexual preferences are, nor does
> their race, age, gender, occupation, financial status, education, etc.
> matter. It's helped people in the past and it helps them today.
> Therefore it's still good. It dont help everyone that joins, but that
> not the fault of AA, it's the person not working the program.
>
> Just because you have certain religious and biased opinions about
> people's sexual preferences does not mean that everyone else has to
> believe them, nor does that affect AA's ability to help people. AA
> has become corrupted only in YOUR mind.
>
> Did you go tohttp://www.createdgay.com
> I'd like to hear what you say about this site.
> I'm not gay, but I believe gays are just as good, or can be just as
> bad as anyone else. And there are at least 100 formal religions, and
> many more informal ones, and non-believers too. What gives you the
> right to say your religious beliefs are right and everyone else is
> wrong? AA is for everyone, not just those who follow what YOU
> believe.
>
> AA has not gotten corrupted. In fact it's the same program it was
> years ago. It's just made itself more accessable for everyone.
> AA is here to save our lives from alcoholism. Churches are here to
> save souls. Take your liver to an AA meeting, take your soul to
> church.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AA has gotten corrupted. Mostly by drug addict christians.
These peices of SHIT are the biggest scum buckets in the history of
the world. Most of them if not all of them were trained to lie steal
cheat and kill by the US military. These are the maggots ruining the
justice system. We need a civil war to bring freedom back to the US.
Stuart
"Randy D" <ran...@forgetaboutit.com> wrote in message
news:mn.2c427d843...@forgetaboutit.com...
Sure enough. Some are sicker than others.
tedw
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:58:34 -0700 (PDT), tedw <te...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Any fair minded person would agree that it is not the same program it
was years ago.
Were their any Gay AA meetings in Dr. Bob's time?
No, there wasnt.
" What gives you the right to say your religious beliefs are right
and everyone else is
wrong?"
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Emerson Wainwright
> christian neo-con republican cult. A few years of deprogramming by a
> professional deprogrammer might make you normal
Quicker: A smack upside the head. Certainly couldn't do any damage.
Emerson Wainwright
> On Apr 6, 8:44 pm, ex_cat-aho...@getmeoutofhere.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 07 Apr 2008 02:33:40 GMT, buddyb...@bungholeo.com(Buddy Butt)
> > wrote:
>
> > >The Nolalu Barn Owl <gor...@nolalu.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > >> Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
>
> > >Because he's such a foolish ass that his posts are funny.
>
> > I'll agree his posts can be funny. He's the groups clown, and
> > everyone likes a clown, right? I'll have to admit that he does get
> > some on topic threads started, even if he's almost always posting
> > something negative about the program. He keeps everyone on their toes
> > in this group. And no, he does not incite fear in me. He's the kind
> > of guy who you call an asshole, but somehow you kind of feel sorry for
> > him. I'd rather read his nonsense than some of the nasty flame wars
> > that start on newsgroups, as well as all the politics that seem to
> > saturate damn near every group.
>
> I've posted quite a few positive things about the AA program.
To reel in the unsuspecting.
Then you go off on your BS and drag 'em in there with ya.
Emerson Wainwright
Not quite correct. There were AA meetings. Attended by gays.
Randy D
He drives people nuts by being polite and consistent. He sticks to his
guns. He effectively explains his views. This is highly upsetting to
those who disagree and can find nothing to say but to try to damage his
intelligence and character. I love this guy. Randy
Emerson Wainwright
> The Nolalu Barn Owl expressed precisely :
>
> > On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:10:18 +0000, Randy D wrote:
>
> >> No defence is necessary. I've been here for years and I have yet to be
> >> insulted or offended by anything he has said. I thought we were
> >> supposed to accept others. His beliefs and convictions are completely
> >> reasonable and understandable. Does this create fear within you?
>
> > Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
>
> He drives people nuts by being polite and consistent.
LOL!
> This is highly upsetting to
> those who disagree and can find nothing to say but to try to damage his
> intelligence and character.
LOL!
>I love this guy.
Of course, that says more about YOU than it does about TEDDY.
nipntuk
>> Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
> ... he generally sticks to the topic
> of this NG.
'The topic' (as if...) is anti gay rants and fundy whinging??
F.H.
Heh.
Tim and Lisa
That's ok too, but fur me I can tune Him out and not backlash him making
myself lash out in disagreement. That s the way Ted W believes that's ok.
If he came to my front door and wanted to spill his beliefs on me. I'd
probably say excuse me but I'm not interested and shut the door just like I
do right now when they knock. I was raised like Ted W speaks they preach it
in Jails too!
Protestant services. I believe in a Loving God that accepts Me as Me and Yew
as Yew. ;o) and His Spirit lives in Me where ever I my go! ;o)
Timburr
GaryE
>
> Sure, gays have been around all the time. I've been going to meetings,
> mostly non-gay, for 30 years. Life is much easier now for us gays, as well
> as for blacks and other minorities.
>
> I don't think you understand tedw's stance on gays. He and his fellow
> christians believe that being gay is like being a child molester -
> horrible, criminal, and to be avoided at all costs. They also believe that
> being gay is a choice - as though you could pick your sexual orientation.
> Gays could be 'saved' if they would only give it up, become straight, etc.
>
> Enter AA. For teddy and his people, having a 'gay AA meeting,' as such, is
> like having a 'child molester' meeting - one that caters to people who
> practice these criminal acts.
>
> People of good will are never going to change tedw and his fellow
> christians. We must fight them every legal way possible - in the courts and
> at the voting booths. On the positive side, much progress has already been
> made.
Thank you for finally speaking out and giving a much needed enlightened
response.
There are too many parallels that gays have with blacks of 50 years ago
(and you are both, right?)
as blacks stood up to the bigots (and not a few of them were religious
who justified slavery with the Bible)
of their day (my day, actually). If relgious bigots are allowed to
spew their venom without
resistance, then like the cowards they typically are, they will. We
called them 'rednecks' and they
were in control until finally beaten back. Not eliminated, of course.
Unfortunately.
Rednecks too were hiding behind an 'authority' who's main thesis is
purportedly, love and forgiveness.
I recall rednecks who regularly quoted the Bible (usually the OT which
seems to
lend itself better to people who hate other people).
And I am sure there are many believers who run their lives by love and
forgiveness.
I certainly don't have the answer to bigotry, racism, homophobia.
I am always surprised how much it is tolerated under the banner of
Christianity.
How people can wink at it. And even admire it.
The price of bigotry and homophobia is, ultimately blood. Fomented by
words of intolerance
and that's the way I saw it growing up. And of course, those good
Chrisitians who only speak 'the truth' are
absolved of any blood. It's too bad that there probably will not be a
'Judgment Day' (my opinion) where the blood in the soil cries out for
justice and gets it.
Being black, I feel sure you recognize the 'code words' and the
implications. I read as much
since you are by definition (of bigots and homophobes), a piece of
trash, unless, of course,
you do what these fine examples of love and forgiveness want you to do.
Capitulate to them
who have appointed themselves as messengers of the loving and forgiving God.
And you are correct, you did not choose your 'sexual orientation', nor
did I and I turned out to be
hetrosexual. Were 'hetrosexuality' a 'sin' I can confidently predict
that not many hetro's would
abstain from their sexual urges or practice homosexuality. On the
other hand, it is all too telling
that the Christian religion has this overwhelming obsession with sex, which
God,
in his perfect wisdom
created.
Gary
nipntuk
While it may seem an innocuous expression of too-fervent religiosity on the
surface, tedw's intolerance and message of 'sin', 'corruption' and 'moral
inferiority' exact a very ugly price, in the guise of 'love':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE7D91638F930A15752C1A960948260
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/gender/gayisok/stopping_suicide.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
Charlie M. 1958
> And you are correct, you did not choose your 'sexual orientation', nor
> did I and I turned out to be
> hetrosexual. Were 'hetrosexuality' a 'sin' I can confidently predict
> that not many hetro's would
> abstain from their sexual urges or practice homosexuality.
This is the central point, which seems so obvious, that the tedw's of
the world simply cannot grasp.
I can't remember the last time I really *wanted* to have sex with a
man, but decided against it because it just wouldn't be the right thing
to do. :-)
Rob D.
> Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
He's big on insisting that alcoholism is "not a disease," but rather,
"all about sin." He's big on objesting to anyone who wants to have a
special-interest meeting...that AA should not "allow" this, or that by
indicating in a meet list that it is a SI meeting, and what that SI
is, AA is somehow "condoning" the activity.
He asked me once if I would be "okay" with there being a "child
molesters" group...I wish I had known what to say to him back when he
made the comment...
I've dealt with men in prison settings, and a huge number of them are
in prison on charges related to alcoholism. In the prison in Taft,
Oklahoma, there are large numbers of convicted child molesters...Taft
seems to be the preferred prison in Oklahoma for such convicts, so
that treatment options can be centered in one place, rather than
needlessly duplicated.
So, would I be "okay" with a "child molesters AA group" within the
confines of the prison?
Yes.
They've got issues they deal with that other, more run-of-the-mill
members of AA don't have...and I would think it would be detrimental
to the meeting to have some fellow all the time saying, "You did
*what!?!* How *could* you!?! How *dare* you?!?"
Seems it would kind of get in the way of applying the steps to their
lives, so I would think that if they wanted to have a meeting where
they didn't have to spend all their time explaining it to "outsiders,"
there would be nothing wrong with having such a meeting.
As long as they don't *exclude* any alcoholic who is in need of a
meeting ("You're not a convicted child molester, so you can't
attend"), I would think it should be called an AA meeting.
By the same logic, I think there should be mens' meetings, womens'
meetings, gay meetings, teen meetings, etc.
When I was in sem in Milwaukee, I used to go to a meeting that was
listed as a "priests' meeting." There were about 10 priests in the
Milwaukee area in recovery (that I knew of), and the meeting was a
liitle different than a standard meeting, but not by much. A big part
of the difference was the language used...nobody had to stop and
explain the problem they were having with some fool down at the
chancery, for example, or that the Vicar for priests was being an ass
and making life difficult.
I don't recall that we had many folks who were not priests
attend...there *was* a woman who came to the meeting once. I don't
think she read the schedule right or something, and we immediately
flipped to a standard "beginners meeting," mainly for her sake, but
also for ourselves...we were not about to exclude anyone in need of a
meeting.
Why on earth *not* have "special interest" meetings?
(Answer: Because tedw feels threatened by gays having a meeting at
which he is not present.. Somehow.)
Ted L.
news:b7101f39-da50-4b95...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 8:26 pm, The Nolalu Barn Owl <gor...@nolalu.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> Why does Ted or replies to Ted or threads about Ted dominate this NG?
>
> He's big on insisting that alcoholism is "not a disease," but rather,
> "all about sin." He's big on objesting to anyone who wants to have a
> special-interest meeting...that AA should not "allow" this, or that by
> indicating in a meet list that it is a SI meeting, and what that SI
> is, AA is somehow "condoning" the activity.
>
Think he'd object to a married-white-guys-over-50 meeting? (not that I'd
attend myself -- I think it'd be pretty dull, even though I "qualify.")
--
Ted L.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Charlie M. 1958
female-alcoholics-cross-addicted-to-exhibitionism meeting. (As long as
they don't exclude any other alcoholic who happens to wander in by
accident.)
tedw
> ex_cat-aho...@getmeoutofhere.com wrote:
>
> > Gays have been around since the beginning of time. It's really
> > nothing new. It's just that they're more open about it now. I'm sure
> > they have attended meetings since AA first began (Dr. Bob's time).
> > Like I said in my prev. message, AA has just made the program more
> > accessible now. Not just for gays, but for other special interest
> > groups. I know that gays go to general meetings, but sometimes I
> > think they would rather be with other gays, which is understandable so
> > they can open up about gay issues related to AA.
> > In Dr. Bob's time, I doubt they had "no smoking" meetings either.
> > What is so wrong about having meetings to please people who are gay,
> > who dont like being around smokers, who are co-addicted, etc...
> > The idea is to go to meetings for sobriety. AA wants to help all who
> > need it, and not discourage non-smokers or gays, or ????
> > This only makes sense.
>
> Sure, gays have been around all the time. I've been going to meetings,
> mostly non-gay, for 30 years. Life is much easier now for us gays, as well
> as for blacks and other minorities.
>
> I don't think you understand tedw's stance on gays. He and his fellow
> christians believe that being gay is like being a child molester -
> horrible, criminal, and to be avoided at all costs. They also believe that
> being gay is a choice - as though you could pick your sexual orientation.
> Gays could be 'saved' if they would only give it up, become straight, etc.
>
> Enter AA. For teddy and his people, having a 'gay AA meeting,' as such, is
> like having a 'child molester' meeting - one that caters to people who
> practice these criminal acts.
>
> People of good will are never going to change tedw and his fellow
> christians. We must fight them every legal way possible - in the courts and
> at the voting booths. On the positive side, much progress has already been
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont believe being Gay is a "choice". I believe its a compulsion as
is all sin.
Emerson Wainwright
A complete list of people who care what you believe:
.
The End.
tedw
> commented.http://www.createdgay.com
> In brief, it's a Gay Christian site, in favor of BOTH.
> Like I said before, I am not gay, but I believe this site has the
> right message. God does not discriminate against people based on
> sexual preference, race, the church we attend, or how many times they
> repeat the "Hail Mary".
>
> If God is to judge those who are good from those who are bad, it would
> more likely be based on those who love others being the "good", and
> those who hate others being the "bad". In that case, God must NOT
> like Tedw very much, since Tedw is all about hate....
>
> I'm surprised MGM or Universal Studios have not contacted Tedw to make
> a movie called "I Love Me, I Hate You". It would be an excellent
> movie about the typical hating Christian and their book of hatred
> called the Bible. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its a propaganda site not a Christian site. They are perverting the
truth.
Very wicked indeed.
nipntuk
Should laws against homosexual acts be enforced, ted?
tedw
Tell me the secret motive of your question?
nipntuk
It's a straightforward question. Why be evasive?
JoeRaisin
> Tim and Lisa presented the following explanation :
>> "tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:de9cbab0-2d39-4f7a...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 5, 3:10 pm, Randy D <ran...@forgetaboutit.com> wrote:
>>> No defence is necessary. I've been here for years and I have yet to be
>>> insulted or offended by anything he has said. I thought we were
>>> supposed to accept others. His beliefs and convictions are completely
>>> reasonable and understandable. Does this create fear within you?
>>
So its okay for him to not accept other's beliefs, but we have to accept
his? If you're going to be critical, be consistent.
Does one HAVE to be insulted or offended to engage in debate?
Never said I had a problem with what he believes.
I experience plenty of fear in life, but not in this particular case.
>> Thanks Randy. It will be interesting to see what kind of response you
>> get.
>>
>> I predict insults .
>>
>> Why insults?
>
> Are you that naive? Are you new here? But don't take our word for it.
> Watch what follows. Intolerance by those who promote understanding and
> tolerance. It's an old story.
>
>
While my reality is my reality, it is my reality - yours may be different.
The only thing I’m intolerant of is intolerance. Ted can tell me he’s
right all day long and it wouldn’t inspire me to respond – but when he
tells me I’m wrong, I feel a need to chime in.
And why is everyone else wrong according to Ted? Because the Holy
Spirit spoke to him when he read the bible – I’ll wager someone other
than the Holy Spirit was speaking as he contemplated what those passages
meant (You know, I'll bet if you ask the followers of Warren Jeffs they
will tell you the Holy Spirit spoke to them too). Basically what he is
saying is that the followers of religions other than his are fakers, and
what’s worse, they must know they’re fakers because they actively deny
the “Truth” when it is presented to them by Ted.
As for AA, not only do we deny “Truth” but we knowingly pass on lies –
lies that are dooming poor ignorant innocents to the fiery pits of hell
only because we choose not to address a topic that has nothing
whatsoever to do with the singleness of purpose of the organization we
happen to have in common.
Ted’s intolerance when it comes to accepting that others may have
beliefs and or interpretations that they believe in, just as devoutly
and confidently as Ted does, smacks more of a fear of being wrong rather
than confidence in being right.
Of course Ted tells me he is confident because the Holy Spirit spoke to
him as he read the bible and he found the true meaning of what it was he
was reading. What a coincidence that the “Truth” he found just happened
to match whatever it was the leaders of his church were preaching. Not
that there’s anything wrong with that in and of itself. That’s what
religion is all about – people coming together in communities to
worship, according to their own shared ways, the universal higher power
that some of us call God.
Believing one is right is fine; it is when one believes the other fellow
is wrong that the trouble starts. And, no, they are not the same thing
– think about it. Ghandi thought he was right, The Romans thought
others were wrong and Hitler thought some others were so wrong they
didn’t deserve to exist.
Therefore the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance. Not a hell
of a lot I can do about it, but here in this forum I can speak out, so I do.
In another post you said:
>He drives people nuts by being polite and consistent. He sticks to his
>guns. He effectively explains his views. This is highly upsetting to
>those who disagree and can find nothing to say but to try to damage his
>intelligence and character. I love this guy. Randy
Polite? You call it polite when (after he is bested in debate) he
tosses out my ‘anger issue’ when he knows God damned well what triggered
that particular issue. He did that just to hurt - polite my ass.
If you read back through the posts I made regarding Ted’s writing
skills, you will find that, while I made sport once or twice, the
overall tone I was trying for was that improving those skills could only
benefit him since much of his argument is based upon academics (biblical
study, research, etc…). Of course he refused to see that, seeing how I
am one of those “Wrong” people.
I say these things only in explanation of where my mind is at - I have
no compunction of jumping up on a soapbox from time to time but I try to
avoid the altitude of a high horse.
Tim and Lisa
Tim said,
Coming from a straight person I believe yew believe this.
I don't and I'm straight.
Timburr
Rob D.
>
> I dont believe being Gay is a "choice". I believe its a compulsion as
> is all sin.
Yeah?
If sin is "a compulsion," then there is no moral responsibility.
We are not responsible for what we cannot possibly do, and we are
*also* not responsible for what we cannot possibly *not* do.
Rob
tedw
> Randy D wrote:
> > Tim and Lisa presented the following explanation :
> >> "tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:de9cbab0-2d39-4f7a...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 5, 3:10 pm, Randy D <ran...@forgetaboutit.com> wrote:
> >>> No defence is necessary. I've been here for years and I have yet to be
> >>> insulted or offended by anything he has said. I thought we were
> >>> supposed to accept others. His beliefs and convictions are completely
> >>> reasonable and understandable. Does this create fear within you?
>
> So its okay for him to not accept other's beliefs, but we have to accept
> his? If you're going to be critical, be consistent.
>
> Does one HAVE to be insulted or offended to engage in debate?
>
> Never said I had a problem with what he believes.
>
> I experience plenty of fear in life, but not in this particular case.
>
> >> Thanks Randy. It will be interesting to see what kind of response you
> >> get.
>
> >> I predict insults .
>
> >> Why insults?
>
> > Are you that naive? Are you new here? But don't take our word for it.
> > Watch what follows. Intolerance by those who promote understanding and
> > tolerance. It's an old story.
>
> While my reality is my reality, it is my reality - yours may be different.
>
> The only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance. Ted can tell me he's
> tells me I'm wrong, I feel a need to chime in.
>
> And why is everyone else wrong according to Ted? Because the Holy
> than the Holy Spirit was speaking as he contemplated what those passages
> meant (You know, I'll bet if you ask the followers of Warren Jeffs they
> will tell you the Holy Spirit spoke to them too). Basically what he is
> saying is that the followers of religions other than his are fakers, and
> what's worse, they must know they're fakers because they actively deny
> the "Truth" when it is presented to them by Ted.
>
> lies that are dooming poor ignorant innocents to the fiery pits of hell
> only because we choose not to address a topic that has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the singleness of purpose of the organization we
> happen to have in common.
>
> Ted's intolerance when it comes to accepting that others may have
> beliefs and or interpretations that they believe in, just as devoutly
> and confidently as Ted does, smacks more of a fear of being wrong rather
> than confidence in being right.
>
> Of course Ted tells me he is confident because the Holy Spirit spoke to
> him as he read the bible and he found the true meaning of what it was he
> was reading. What a coincidence that the "Truth" he found just happened
> to match whatever it was the leaders of his church were preaching. Not
> that there's anything wrong with that in and of itself. That's what
> worship, according to their own shared ways, the universal higher power
> that some of us call God.
>
> Believing one is right is fine; it is when one believes the other fellow
> is wrong that the trouble starts. And, no, they are not the same thing
> others were wrong and Hitler thought some others were so wrong they
> didn't deserve to exist.
>
> Therefore the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance. Not a hell
> of a lot I can do about it, but here in this forum I can speak out, so I do.
>
> In another post you said:
>
> >He drives people nuts by being polite and consistent. He sticks to his
> >guns. He effectively explains his views. This is highly upsetting to
> >those who disagree and can find nothing to say but to try to damage his
> >intelligence and character. I love this guy. Randy
>
> Polite? You call it polite when (after he is bested in debate) he
> tosses out my 'anger issue' when he knows God damned well what triggered
> that particular issue. He did that just to hurt - polite my ass.
>
> If you read back through the posts I made regarding Ted's writing
> skills, you will find that, while I made sport once or twice, the
> overall tone I was trying for was that improving those skills could only
> benefit him since much of his argument is based upon academics (biblical
> am one of those "Wrong" people.
>
> I say these things only in explanation of where my mind is at - I have
> no compunction of jumping up on a soapbox from time to time but I try to
> avoid the altitude of a high horse.
I never said anything to deliberately hurt you. You may have taken it
that way, but
that was never my intent.
F.H.
> to save our souls from their evil. I'm sure he'll find some passages
> in at least one version of the bible to support their deaths.
> There must be an exclusion to the commandment which reads "thou shall not
> kill".
There is. Find a devout Christian that supported the invasion and
occupation of Iraq and all the killing as a result and ask them to
explain it to you.
tedw
Here is one of the best things I have ever read on that subject:
"Probably you believe that you created and are responsible for your
pride-sin nature. In
reality, you have inherited it; you do not choose to sin- you are
compelled to so. Because
you think that you have the power to choose, you attempt to remedy
your errors by indulging
in self-incrimination. By heaping blame and accusations upon yourself,
you believe you can purge
yourself of your faults, and to hasten your purgation you add a large
dose of sadness. But don't you
see that any effort on your part to make yourself innocent is an act
of pride, which only makes you
more guilty and morbid.
One you see the futility of struggling and cease trying, you will
relax; and as you relax, the sin of trying
to remove sin falls away. You are still left with your sin, but you no
longer believe you are responsible for it,
and you realize that you have sinned because of the compulsive nature
of your pride toward sin.
You were born a slave to sin, and your nature has come down to you
through your parents from Adam.
Now as you realize why you are helpless, why you cannot save yourself
the responsibility for what you
done wrong, indeed, for what you may be doing wrong this very moment-
passes to God, who takes your sins
upon Himself. Suddenly you feel released for it has become His
responsibility to save you, and when salvation is
God's responsibility, not yours, lo and behold! Not only does the
guilt of your sin pass from you but so does the sin.
Search the Scriptures to more fully comprehend this mystery"
tedw
LET GO, LET GOD.
jimbo
The religious fanatics are like alcoholics and the deeper they go,
the more it becomes an
> addiction.
Money, power, prestige are a very powerful drug in the hands of people
who have never wielded it. Just look at some of the little dictators
in AA.
Jimbo
Charlie M. 1958
> "Rob D." <fr.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We are not responsible for what we cannot possibly do, and we are
>> *also* not responsible for what we cannot possibly *not* do.
>
> homosexuality as a mortal sin. Yet it is no secret that a great many
> priests are gay. How do you reconcile this? How do they?
>
> Bill
Biljo, crazy as it may sound, the Catholic church's position is that it
is okay to *be* a homosexual, but it is a sin to engage in homosexual
sex. Therefore, in their eyes, the only acceptable option for a
homosexual is to either *fake it* in a straight marriage, or remain
celibate.
Tex
Crazy as it may sound .... it's *sex* the church is all fucked up
about. Not to mention *women*. tedw might be the next fuckin' Pope!
It's a one flavor deal when it comes to *sex* and better be generative
or it doesn't matter your orientation. The whole thing is unrealistic,
especially in these modern time, except it's not. Not, because being
as how the glue that holds the whole mess together is guilt it's a
perfect attitude. A brilliant setup to control the peons not to
mention create even more little soldiers.
It's a church, an outfit based on cartoon characters, so like all the
others it's got it's heroes and villians, do's and don'ts, and one way
or the other can be traced back to the money. If humans weren't sheep,
idiots, and gullible probably wouldn't be churches (of any type) or
governments.
Rob D.
> "Rob D." <fr.robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We are not responsible for what we cannot possibly do, and we are
> > *also* not responsible for what we cannot possibly *not* do.
>
> homosexuality as a mortal sin. Yet it is no secret that a great many
> priests are gay. How do you reconcile this? How do they?
>
> Bill
You are mistaken, unless we have a language problem going here...
I've been through this in the past, and it just seemed to make things
worse (in terms of anger and fury) on the part of the person I was
trying to communicate with.
I'm willing to go into this with you, in fact more than willing.
It'll be pretty much calm on my part. Are you really sure you want to
get into it, either here or in email?
I don't mean this as a snide challenge or anything...I just don't like
messing with people's recovery, and so I try to restrict myself some.
I don't always succeed, as is obvious in the lenthy thread about
scripture that has been going. Part of that is that I figure that,
just as I rely on Mark and Charlie for their expertise in computers,
and have relied on others for their knowledge on one topic or another,
just so should I be willing to offer my trainging an scripture and
theology to anyone who wants to make use of it.
Let me know, here or in email. I'll be happy to answer *any* question
you want, as best I can, if you decide you want to take this farther.
(Further? Farther? Screw it, You know what I mean. 8-P)
Rob
Rob D.
So, if I never turn to God, which would be a sin, this too is not my
responsibility, because I cannot help but fail to do so.
Thus, all sin is God's fault.
No wonder you're so screwed up.
Rob
Charlie M. 1958
>
> But I've been told that there are severe Catholic restrictions on
> hetrosexual sex as well - marriage only, of course, for procreation only
> (no sex for fun!!), missionary position only, under the covers, and,
> incredibly, once you start you can't stop short of "completion."
Even a *recovering* Catholic like me would have to admit that those
examples are not true. About the only Catholic restrictions on sex that
I'm aware of is that it take place inside of marriage, and that no
*artificial* means of birth control be used (the pill, condoms, etc.) It
is okay to avoid pregnancy by having sex during a woman's infertile time
of the month, so sex for fun (or as they would say, as a loving
expression of the bond between husband and wife) is perfectly acceptable.
>
> Anything to keep pumping out those Catholic babies, I guess. More money and
> power that way.
>
> I personally know gay men and women who are devout Catholics. Sort of like
> Black Republicans. Go figure.
I find that there is a pretty common thread among people who belong to
various religions... the ability to ignore certain aspects of doctrine
that they disagree with. Perfect example..... many, many *devout*
Catholics use birth control.
Emerson Wainwright
Here's the secret: You may answer "Yes" or "No".
Emerson Wainwright
> to save our souls from their evil.
Teddy knows from evil.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.aa/msg/f27cc9b672f1da13
QED
Emerson Wainwright
Here's a more intelligent version: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.aa/msg/f27cc9b672f1da13
Emerson Wainwright
> "Rob D." <fr.robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *also* not responsible for what we cannot possibly *not* do.
>
> homosexuality as a mortal sin.
BEING homosexual is not considered a sin (any more), but acting on the
attraction is still a sin.
> Yet it is no secret that a great many
> priests are gay. How do you reconcile this? How do they?
They pray and they are forgiven.
(Then they can do it all again.)
Tex
<charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>many, many *devout*
>Catholics use birth control.
Many devout aa members take a drink now n' then too...in fact 3 of the
most influential people in my sobriety never could put long term runs
of sobriety together for themselves.
Maybe life itself is just a cartoon and not just limited to religions
& governments.
Ted L.
news:9a9ff5aa-19f3-4a87...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hmmmmm... I wonder what St. Paul would say to that?
(You know, the bit about "the good I would do...." etc.)
--
Ted L.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Rob D.
> "Rob D." <fr.robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm willing to go into this with you, in fact more than willing.
> > It'll be pretty much calm on my part. Are you really sure you want to
> > get into it, either here or in email?
>
> > I don't mean this as a snide challenge or anything...I just don't like
> > messing with people's recovery,
>
> I work with AIDS patients and other gay and straight people with difficult,
> sometimes fatal, problems every day; I'm pretty solid!
Okay...first off...we need to be clear on what we are talking about.
Now, you can use any languange you want, and I'll follow it. The last
time I tried to have this discussion, I was accused of trying to
weight the discussion with the terms I suggested, when I proposed more
or less the following:
We have to distinguish between an orientation or tendency, which can
in no way be called "virtuous" or "sinful," and action, which can be
either one of those things, or can also be neutral.
So, for the purpose of discussion, I would propose that we use the
term "homosexual" to refer to a person who experiences sexual
attraction to members of their own gender.
Period.
Nothing more has been said than that. Nothing about activity, nothing
about decisions. Nothing.
Now, if you want to use "gay" for this, okay, I can be on board for
that.
If we do use "gay" for what I have defined as "homosexual" above, we
will still need another term...one which will refer to sexual
activity.
The last time, when I proposed "gay" as a word to use for a homosexual
who engages in same-sex sexual activity.
This enraged the fellow I was trying to communicate with, as he
insisted that I was thus trying to equate "gay" with "slut."
I wasn't, and stilll am not. I just wannt to be very clear what terms
you want me to use, so we can be clear what we're speaking of.
Until we can agree that words have meaning, and that we both agree
what we mean by particular words, we cannot get *anywhere.*
(Oh, and God bless you for the work you do. It's Sacred work, whether
you know it or not. Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy are
paramount in the teachings of Christ.)
Rob
Charlie M. 1958
To butt in... I can see where your use of "gay" to mean "sexually
active" would create confusion (and obviously anger in at least one
case. What's wrong with just "sexually active" or "celibate"?
Emerson Wainwright
> Thus, all sin is God's fault.
As the omniscient and omnipotent creator, that would make sense, no?
Kinda screwed up that this god purposely created (and let things
happen) that he himself abhors (and knew he'd abhor before he created
or allowed to happen).
Perhaps some lithium is in order.
Rob D.
wrote:
Well..."celibate" actually means "unmarried," and does not refer to
sexual activity, but you're right that people use it to mean something
quite different...
Thus, a "sexually-active celibate"....what does that mean? For me it
would mean one thing; to someone else, something else.
You see the problem? We just have to agree what word means what
thing, and that nobody's gonna get pissed over use of language.
I'm willing to be flexible of what means what, and adapt myself to the
other guy's vocabulary...I just need to be clear on exactly what that
is. I don't want to wast my time (or his) on a discussion that
suddenly falls apart over something trivial...a perceived insult where
none was intended, and all this because we simply failed to come to
accord on definitions.
Rob
Rob D.
wrote:
Heh.
I don't know how the whole Heavenly Health Care system would
work...would God have to belong to an HMO...wouldn't that be kind of
exclusive? Or would they let the angels in? And who the hell would
be the pencil-pushers...? (Or perhaps asking that question already
implies the answer...) Would there be a limit on participating
pharmacies, and which doctors He could see? Shouldn't be, especially
if He is being treated for Omniscience...
Ask your doctor if Cilotzless is right for you...
Emerson Wainwright
Not in today's usage.
> and does not refer to
> sexual activity, but you're right that people use it to mean something
> quite different...
>
> Thus, a "sexually-active celibate"....what does that mean?
It's a contradiction in terms.
> For me it
> would mean one thing; to someone else, something else.
>
> You see the problem? We just have to agree what word means what
> thing, and that nobody's gonna get pissed over use of language.
Stick with this:
"Sexually active homosexual" for those who do engage in sex
"Celibate homosexual" for those who do not engage in sex
Are we also going to have to define "sex"?
Bob
"Never overestimate the intelligence of the electorate" ... Bishop John
Shelby Spong
nipntuk
>
> Crazy as it may sound .... it's *sex* the church is all fucked up
> about. Not to mention *women*.
Tex, yer off the mark on this one. Some o' my best action happened at & after
CYA picnics.
Charlie M. 1958
> Well..."celibate" actually means "unmarried," and does not refer to
> sexual activity, but you're right that people use it to mean something
> quite different...
Hmmm..... you sent me to the dictionaries with this statement, Rob,
horrified at the possibility I'd been misusing the word my entire
life.
Actually, both "unmarried" and "refraining from sexual relations" are
correct definitions. Of the four dictionaries I consulted (1 print and
3 online), three listed abstaining from sex as the primary definition,
and one listed unmarried as the first definition.
So.....your saying that celibacy does not refer to sexual activity is
not entirely correct. But, the whole thing *does* make your point
about defining terms a valid one. :-)
Bob
> On Apr 8, 6:04 pm, tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I dont believe being Gay is a "choice". I believe its a compulsion as
>> is all sin.
> Yeah?
>
> If sin is "a compulsion," then there is no moral responsibility.
>
> *also* not responsible for what we cannot possibly *not* do.
>
> Rob
My experience of compulsion is that, after the first time, compulsion is
inevitably *preceded* by abandonment of, or at best avoidance of,
responsibility.
Bob
Rob D.
wrote:
>
> So.....your saying that celibacy does not refer to sexual activity is
> not entirely correct. But, the whole thing *does* make your point
> about defining terms a valid one. :-)
Except that in the Catholic church, permanent deacons are obligated to
accept a promise of celibacy. These are married men, typically (I
have not heard of an unmarried man being accepted into training or
ordained for the permanent diaconate, though there may be some
transitional deacons who have declined ordination to the priesthood).
So this married man, who is under a promise of celibacy...what does
this mean? Does the Church reasonably expect that he will no longer
have relations with his wife?
Of course not. That's not what his promise of celibacy means. What
it *does* mean is that he will not seek to marry, should something
happen to his wife. If she should die, he is not free to marry, due
to his promise of celibacy.
Thus my contention that "celibacy" refers to the state of being
unmarried. What most people usually mean by "celibacy" is in fact
"celibate chastity," but that's pretty wordy, and most folks just say
"celibate" for someone who is not in a sexual relationship.
You're right that words mean what people agree that they mean,
though. Look at "ironic." Does it mean what the proper dictionary
definition would mean...saying the opposite of what is actually
meant? (It's pouring rain, and gloomy. I say, sarcastically, "My,
what a beautiful day." Irony can also be used to refer to an
occurrence contrary to what would be properly expected: "It's ironic
that Jim says that he is opposed to illegal immigration, but he
employs Jose, who is here illegally, to manage his business." The
irony seems to arise from the fact that Jim's stated position does not
seem to mean what one might properly expect.
In the usage, "I looked all over town for a coat I liked, and then,
ironically, I found one in the store right next door," there really is
no irony. (Okay, if said sarcastically, in critcism of how people
mistakenly use the term, yes, *that* would be ironic...I think...)
What most folks really mean by the use of "irony" is the unexpected or
the coincidental.
So...does irony have this secondary meaning, or not? I would say it
does, if the speaker knows what he means, and the hearer understands
what is meant, then the word conveys the meaning.
But once one accepts this view, one must then be very careful...it can
lead to serious imprecision...probably not in the case of "irony" so
much, but in the case of "celibate," "homosexual," "gay," et cetera,
too much confusion is possible, and terms should be carefully defined,
at least for the discussion.
Rob
F.H.
> On Apr 8, 6:04 pm, tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I dont believe being Gay is a "choice". I believe its a compulsion as
>> is all sin.
> Yeah?
>
> If sin is "a compulsion," then there is no moral responsibility.
So..., teddy thinks homosexuality is a compulsion. In a therapy setting
the therapist would no doubt ask.., "why do you think that, ted, and why
does it arouse such strong feeling in you?"
Rob D.
Careful how you use "arouse."
;-)
Tex
wrote:
I can't write or you can't read...I didn't say the women don't have
sex...It's the church that is fucked up towards *sex* and *women*...
Charlie M. 1958
> Except that in the Catholic church, permanent deacons are obligated to
> accept a promise of celibacy. These are married men, typically (I
> have not heard of an unmarried man being accepted into training or
> ordained for the permanent diaconate, though there may be some
> transitional deacons who have declined ordination to the priesthood).
>
> So this married man, who is under a promise of celibacy...what does
> this mean? Does the Church reasonably expect that he will no longer
> have relations with his wife?
Without the full explanation you provided, to say a married deacon has
accepted a promise of celibacy would confuse anyone, regardless of
which definition they used. In all honesty, Rob, I see all the
wordsmithing as a major problem with the church. I get a kick out of
reading the local Catholic newspaper. There is a column written by a
priest where people write in for clarification on various matter of
faith and church doctrine....sort of a Dear Abby of Catholicism.
Anyway, I have 13 years of Catholic education, a college degree, and
an IQ that would qualify me for Mensa, and yet I often come away from
reading the answers to readers' questions scratching my head and going
"What the hell did he say?"
And by the way, what sense does it make to only accept married men
into the deaconate, and then make them promise they won't marry again
should their wives die? (Rhetorical question...don't feel obliged to
answer.)
>
> But once one accepts this view, one must then be very careful...it can
> lead to serious imprecision...probably not in the case of "irony" so
> much, but in the case of "celibate," "homosexual," "gay," et cetera,
> too much confusion is possible, and terms should be carefully defined,
> at least for the discussion.
>
On this point we can agree. :-)
Tex
<charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway, I have 13 years of Catholic education, a college degree, and
>an IQ that would qualify me for Mensa, and yet I often come away from
>reading the answers to readers' questions scratching my head and going
>"What the hell did he say?"
Gee whiz....no wonder I wander around here not knowing heads from
tails!
Charlie M. 1958
<snip>
> This places a burden on the humanist -- one many people are not willing to
> shoulder -- without gods, superstitions, etc., *we* must decide what is
> right and wrong. It is entirely up to us. I do what I believe is right, not
> what god or jesus or a preacher or priest tells me is right.
>
> This is not as difficult as it may seem. Normal people in all societies
> (excluding psychopaths) all seem to agree on the same basic principles - do
> good to others; avoid doing harm. <snip>
Well said, Bill. It's always seemed to me that all the major religions
have these same basic principles, but then they each diverge on their
own little tangents of specific rules, regulations, and beliefs. When
one steps back and looks at the big picture, clearly it must be those
core principles that are what is important, not the details on which
those religions disagree. Why else would those principles be the one
thread of consistency tying together all the varied points of view?
I respect anyone's right to choose a specific set of details (religion)
and claim it as their own. But at the same time, I must admit that it
just doesn't make sense to me to argue over those details. I might tell
you my favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla, and you tell me yours is
chocolate, and that's fine. But arguing over whether homosexual sex is a
sin, or whether Jesus is the savior, is about as pointless as arguing
that one flavor of ice cream really *is* better than another.
Tex
<charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> is about as pointless as arguing
>that one flavor of ice cream really *is* better than another.
You might as well pack your bags....you have just purchased a ticket
to hell.
It's all right to batter with banter hetros and homos....but when you
dismiss the importance of one flavor over another concerning ice cream
you have strayed past the point of redemption and no amount of
repentance can successfully earn you passing rights thru the gates
into the Kingdom of Heaven....if you aren't the devil himself you most
certainly have to be one of his earthly likeness demons set upon
destroying all that is sweet and good.
May you be set upon a rock in the August sun within shouting distance
of Ludlow along with any flavor of your choice in a five gallon
quanity with a tiny plastic spoon and forced to consume it before it
melts!
Charlie M. 1958
As long as *I* get to pick the *best* flavor.
Tex
<charles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, you get to pick...the list is:
Rocky Road
Tutti Frutti
Charlie M. 1958
>
> Yes, you get to pick...the list is:
>
> Rocky Road
>
> Tutti Frutti
Hey, is that "code" for straight or gay?
Random thought: Do you think it is coincidence that what the authors of
the BB had to say about sex ended up on page 69?
Tex
Actually it starts on 68 and ends on 70....so I think it's just some
wiseass alkie with a weak ideal fingerfucking with newcomers minds
trying to either be funny or get their attention or both. Remember we
are not a glum lot.
GaryE
> "Rob D." <fr.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Until we can agree that words have meaning, and that we both agree
>> what we mean by particular words, we cannot get *anywhere.*
>>
>
> Terminology - Everyone I've read or talked to uses the terms 'gay' and
> 'homosexual' identically. I like 'gay' because it's shorter.
>
> Most adults are sexually active, so let's assume any gay person we talk
> about is sexually active, or has been and will be (between relationships,
> etc.). 'Non-active gay' is a possible term.
>
> You can get bogged down in terminology and obfuscate the core facts (as
> another poster alluded with the 'church papers'). The differentiating
> factor for christians is simply that if you are gay (have a distinct sexual
> attraction to persons of the same sex) and don't act on it, you are 'ok';
> but if you act on your desires you are 'sinful.'
>
> I belong to a class of people loosely called 'humanists,' for want of a
> better term. I don't believe that there is any sort of superior entity,
> god, jesus, allah, etc. -- could be; I don't have the information. So I
> assume not. Therefore, I don't have the luxury of another agency telling me
> what is right and wrong ('sinful').
>
> There is no sin -- there are only things people do.
>
> This places a burden on the humanist -- one many people are not willing to
> shoulder -- without gods, superstitions, etc., *we* must decide what is
> right and wrong. It is entirely up to us. I do what I believe is right, not
> what god or jesus or a preacher or priest tells me is right.
>
> This is not as difficult as it may seem. Normal people in all societies
> (excluding psychopaths) all seem to agree on the same basic principles - do
> good to others; avoid doing harm. Religions jumped in ages ago with a long
> list of rules and regulations and it's not hard to see why - it provides
> their leaders with the power and control they seem to crave. The results,
> from the Inquisition to the Salem Witch Trials, to the Taliban, to the
> pedophile priests, are a trail of blood and human misery, not a trail of
> love.
>
> Humanists spend their time and money directly on good works, rather than
> paying for churches, salaries, and the other expenses of a religion.
>
> Back to gays. We are what we are. We do what we do. We have sex with
> consenting adults. Or not. As humanists, we try not to do harm. What
> reasonable people miss when they argue that we are 'ok' because being gay
> is a sexual orientation, not a 'lifestyle choice,' is that it doesn't
> matter. If we chose homosexual behavior, that's our business too.
>
>> (Oh, and God bless you for the work you do. It's Sacred work, whether
>> you know it or not. Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy are
>> paramount in the teachings of Christ.)
>
> It the work of people who desire to do good in the world. Nothing more. If
> jesus or another supernatural entity taught it, that's fine but irrelevant.
I remember when Blacks has to justify themselves to the "Christians"
(and I use the term loosely because it's not everyone, primarily the
fundies. Then women had to justify their uppity behavior to the same
Christian segment. Slavery and women's inferior position are clearly
spelled out in The Bible. Now it's gay's. You can only suppress
people for so long. It just never quite resonated with
me that the Bible's most visible uses in my part of the world were to
label groups of people and keep
them under control. Of course, no one that I knew of contested that.
And about the only people
left who still continue to try to control through guilt are the
fundies. Christianity's blight.
My Name is Hate
Actually, My real name is Evil.
But most people are against Evil,
So I also go by Hate.
Most people can find a reason to Hate,
And so I can become a part of their lives.
No one can actually see me, of course.
And many people believe that what can't be seen, may not exist.
And you can't find me, the real Me, in any specific place either.
But I am here, nonetheless.
And unlike you, I am Eternal.
You and your kind come and go, but I Exist for all time.
I Exist because you give me life.
Sometimes you outspokenly endorse me.
I like that.
And sometimes you make me wear a mask to hide under the shield of Good.
And I like that too.
Good exists too but I don't like to talk about Good except to say that
Good is mostly absurd.
What kind of essence is Good who tells you to love and serve and to not fight
me.
We all know that if you don't fight something, you don't win.
Most of you think you are smarter than me.
I like that.
If you were even as smart as I was, you would be Me.
And none of you quite match up.
Some of you, particularly those of you who endorse righteous causes which
create division
And enmity and hate are very close to me, however.
You come as close as anyone in matching my prowess.
But I can even tell you how I work and you will recognize it.
But then you will think, "I am smarter," and I will pull you closer.
I am quite irresistible to those who have righteous causes, you see.
And the cause can either appear beneficent or powerful or masquerade as truth.
In any case, you move closer to me.
You cannot defeat me by killing me in others, for I am Eternal.
You cannot defeat me by massing great crowds to denounce me, for I am
More clever than you. I will go to your midst and find those who will
Follow me, and will hate others because they think their Cause is right.
Soon others will want to fight, because it is your nature to fight that which
you
Oppose.
There is a way to defeat me, but I will not tell you what it is. I am no fool.
A few have done it but their numbers are tiny and even when they
Generate a following, I can find those who will hate. It is a very losing
battle for you.
My Path is easy. I will not require much of you.
You can start out by finding others wrong. Because once you find others wrong,
you are but a step away from contempt and then you are but a step away from
spewing your contempt
And then you are but a step away from gathering a following from contempt. And
then you are powerful. I will let you be powerful in my name or in any name
you choose as long as you do the things that let me live. And you will.
My Path is easy. I will lead you gently down it.
I will give any mask you choose. You can even have the mask of Good.
The mask of Good is particularly rewarding for me. You see, I don't
Like Good. In fact, I hate Good. Why wouldn't someone hate something which
can only Love. Only loving is absurd. We must have more than that. And you
Believe that and of course, that is why the Path is easy.
My Path is easy. I will allow you to come and go.
There will be times when you tire of me and Good will tug on you and you will
Go to Good. That is OK. Good's demands are absurd. You will be back because
You love to fight, you love to be right, you need to be right. And even when
You were the mask of Good, I can satisfy your need to be right.
My path is easy. I may even give you wealth and great material things.
You will enjoy them immensely and you will particularly enjoy the
Feeling of power that I grant you that come with that. You will be special to
me because all Righteousness is my ally. And the righteousness of power is as
good as the righteousness Of Cause.
My path is easy. I will not ask you to surrender but to fight for what you
believe for fighting creates division and division creates Me. I will not ask
you to love unconditionally because it only right that Your love not be given
freely but only to those who deserve it. I will not ask you to bend to the
Service of others because you are worthy of more than that. You are worthy of
attention, of respect, of praise, of laud. I will not ask you to speak of your
weaknesses for that will only arm your enemies
And you have enemies, I know, I have created them.
My path is easy, so follow me. When you die, you will say, "I did it the best
way I knew how" and you will proud. And I will know that you have left my
legacy, given me power and strength, so that I may Visit your children and tell
them of you and they will follow me.
Emerson Wainwright
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:30:22 -0500, "Charlie M. 1958"
>
> > is about as pointless as arguing
> >that one flavor of ice cream really *is* better than another.
>
> You might as well pack your bags....you have just purchased a ticket
> to hell.
Indeed!
EVERYONE knows that the RIGHT flavor is VANILLA!
And while some choice should be allowed in brand, Ben & Jerry's
World's Best Vanilla is CLEARLY superior to any other kind!
Proof? "World's Best"!
It's OBVIOUS because it is WRITTEN! Right there on the carton!
Emerson Wainwright
BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rob D.
wrote:
You're a fine one to talk.
When everyone who believes rightly already knows that the only truly
acceptable flavor of ice cream is Cajeta.
Rob
(Who is still pondering how to begin a reply to Biljo.)
RonG
"Emerson Wainwright" <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa0eec56-dfa3-4f0f...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Indeed!
Not so!! That's just phony PR hustled by producers of vanilla beans.
Haagen-Dazs Butter Pecan hands down is the best.
RonG