The really remarkable thing about the definition of intolerant is that those who say we Christians are intolerant and should not express our religious beliefs are the ones who actually fit the definition.
laudabilis votum
Folks, never be deceived by talk of "pluralism".Satan and God are at WAR.
There's no truces, no accommodation, no peace treaty between Good and Evil.
One side or the other shall win and completely smash the other.
All this stuff about "tolerance" and "pluralism" is for us. They hope we'll
buy into it, but they know THEY will never tolerate Christ or accept a
pluralism that includes real Christians.
"Thomas P." <tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:82cm7vg4vua1k8vf5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:52:20 -0800, "markkbilbeaux" <i...@niATya.hoo>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:01:09 -0700, laudabilis votum wrote:
> >
> >> Christianity and Intolerance: Why are Christians So Intolerant?
> >
> >Good question that.
>
> It would be wrong (within their conception of reality) to be tolerant.
> They have "The Truth". It would be both unreasonable and immoral for
> them to tolerate the opposite. That is what makes Christianity
> dangerous. Of course there are Christians who are not intolerant,
> but they are not being completely consistent.
>
>
>
>
S0ren Kirkengaard
I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one
who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these
things.
<mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
news:k9qn7vgvh66d80iog...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:12 -0700, "laudabilis votum"
> <Prai...@Almighty.Com> wrote:
> >There's no truces, no accommodation, no peace treaty between Good and
Evil.
>
> peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these.
>
> The lord CREATEs evil..... So you think God is at war
> with himself?
>
> Michael
>
> .
>
John W
never be able to love himself or us, we CAN love the atheist.
"When your enemy hungers, feed him; when he thirsts, give him water.
For in so doing, you heap coals of fire upon his head."
John W
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:12 -0700, "laudabilis votum"
<Prai...@Almighty.Com> wrote:
In Christ,
John W
Thomas P.
<W...@Q34F.COM> wrote:
(correction of idiotic and rude top-posting)
><mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
>news:k9qn7vgvh66d80iog...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:12 -0700, "laudabilis votum"
>> <Prai...@Almighty.Com> wrote:
>> >There's no truces, no accommodation, no peace treaty between Good and
>Evil.
>>
>> Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make
>> peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these.
>>
>> The lord CREATEs evil..... So you think God is at war
>> with himself?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> .
>>
>
> I 45:7
> I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one
>who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these
>things.
So the answer is yes?
Thomas P.
wrote:
(top-posting corrected)
>John W wrote
>>"Thomas P." <tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
>>news:82cm7vg4vua1k8vf5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:52:20 -0800, "markkbilbeaux" <i...@niATya.hoo>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Christianity and Intolerance: Why are Christians So Intolerant?
>>> >
>>> >Good question that.
>>>
>>> It would be wrong (within their conception of reality) to be tolerant.
>>> They have "The Truth". It would be both unreasonable and immoral for
>>> them to tolerate the opposite. That is what makes Christianity
>>> dangerous. Of course there are Christians who are not intolerant,
>>> but they are not being completely consistent.
>
>On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:12 -0700, "laudabilis votum"
><Prai...@Almighty.Com> wrote:
>
>>Tolerance among Christian for atheists is nill and void.
>>Folks, never be deceived by talk of "pluralism".Satan and God are at WAR.
>>There's no truces, no accommodation, no peace treaty between Good and Evil.
>>One side or the other shall win and completely smash the other.
>>All this stuff about "tolerance" and "pluralism" is for us. They hope we'll
>>buy into it, but they know THEY will never tolerate Christ or accept a
>>pluralism that includes real Christians.
>>
>Remember, however, that Jesus taught, even though the atheist will
>never be able to love himself or us, we CAN love the atheist.
How do you prove your love of atheists by lying about them, as you do
above?
>
>"When your enemy hungers, feed him; when he thirsts, give him water.
>For in so doing, you heap coals of fire upon his head."
>
>
Charming example of Christian love.
Thomas P.
<Prai...@Almighty.Com> wrote:
>Tolerance among Christian for atheists is nill and void.
>Folks, never be deceived by talk of "pluralism".Satan and God are at WAR.
>There's no truces, no accommodation, no peace treaty between Good and Evil.
>One side or the other shall win and completely smash the other.
>All this stuff about "tolerance" and "pluralism" is for us. They hope we'll
>buy into it, but they know THEY will never tolerate Christ or accept a
>pluralism that includes real Christians.
Still top-posting I see. On the other hand thank you for confirming
my opinion that Christianity is intolerant, narrow-minded, dishonest
and dangerous, and you did it all in 7 lines even managing to spell
"null" incorrectly.
Ken Smith
> Tolerance among Christian for atheists is nill and void.
Tolerance among Nazis for Jews was null and void, as well.
Nice to see such Osama-like candor from Christians for a
change.
John W
wrote:
Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their
lives in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to
stay there and serve God.
Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our
country; some of us join the Red Cross.
Quit blaming we who built America.
John W
In Christ,
John W
soren kierkegaard
front line for missions,hospitals and such.
"John W" <john_we...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4mdq7vs8sbn0812r9...@4ax.com...
Budikka
news:<4mdq7vs8sbn0812r9...@4ax.com>...
> Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
> world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their
> lives in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to
> stay there and serve God.
>
> Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
> believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our
> country; some of us join the Red Cross.
>
> Quit blaming we who built America.
>
> John W
"we who built America"?
You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little
faith in their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European
persecution by others who believed just as passionately in that same
myth to move to the USA, then robbed the locals of their land,
livelihoods, belief system and self respect, and now want to oppress
everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining lies, would you?
Budikka
Bob Wite
I do not answer for the evil of my ancestors, or there'd be NO one
without blame.
I thank God that my forbears were persecuted enough that they founded
this great nation. I let God work out the details. What can I do for
Sitting Bull today?
>
>Budikka
In Christ,
John W
Theodore A. Kaldis
> John W wrote:
>> Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
>> world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their lives
>> in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to stay
>> there and serve God.
>> Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
>> believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our country;
>> some of us join the Red Cross.
>> Quit blaming we who built America.
> "we who built America"?
> You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little faith in
> their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European persecution
No, but rather those who had such great faith that they moved to a barren
land so as to establish a nation where God would be honoured.
> by others who believed just as passionately in that same myth to move to
> the USA, then robbed the locals of their land, livelihoods, belief system
> and self respect,
The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
> and now want to oppress everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining
> lies, would you?
It is those rather who are WITHOUT God who practise oppression, and whose
lies can sustain no one. Like Stalin. (And don't give me this nonsense that
Stalin was a seminarian. He was an atheist -- and a man filled with hate --
from even before his mother put him in the seminary, which he hated, and from
which he was eventually expelled.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
John Hattan
>Budikka wrote:
>> John W wrote:
>
>>> Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
>>> world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their lives
>>> in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to stay
>>> there and serve God.
>
>>> Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
>>> believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our country;
>>> some of us join the Red Cross.
>
>>> Quit blaming we who built America.
>
>> "we who built America"?
>
>> You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little faith in
>> their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European persecution
>
>No, but rather those who had such great faith that they moved to a barren
>land so as to establish a nation where God would be honoured.
Boy, those Native Americans must've been surprised to learn that they
lived in a "barren land", eh?
>> by others who believed just as passionately in that same myth to move to
>> the USA, then robbed the locals of their land, livelihoods, belief system
>> and self respect,
>
>The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
>> and now want to oppress everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining
>> lies, would you?
>
>It is those rather who are WITHOUT God who practise oppression, and whose
>lies can sustain no one. Like Stalin. (And don't give me this nonsense that
>Stalin was a seminarian. He was an atheist -- and a man filled with hate --
>from even before his mother put him in the seminary, which he hated, and from
>which he was eventually expelled.)
I don't think you're speaking from a position of strength regarding "a
man filled with hate". . .
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
The Dick-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Ian Braidwood
> Budikka wrote:
>
> > John W wrote:
> > You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little faith in
> > their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European persecution
>
> No, but rather those who had such great faith that they moved to a barren
> land so as to establish a nation where God would be honoured.
Barren? Did you just crawl out from under a rock?
Firstly, there were several _entire nations_ living in the continental
USA before any european settlers arrived.
Exactly how do you justify the use of the term barren to a land which
could support literally millions of bison and the whole ecology needed
to support them.
In truth, continental america was and is so abundant with life that
any attempt to describe it in one post is doomed to failure.
> > by others who believed just as passionately in that same myth to move to
> > the USA, then robbed the locals of their land, livelihoods, belief system
> > and self respect,
>
> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists. The land is
older by several orders of magnitude than your creation myth, your
religeon and your god.
> > and now want to oppress everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining
> > lies, would you?
>
> It is those rather who are WITHOUT God who practise oppression, and whose
> lies can sustain no one.
How am I oppressing you, exactly? How am I stopping you doing
anything? How has any atheist ever stopped you doing anything?
That is what oppression is, stopping people doing what they want
without legal authority.
> Like Stalin. (And don't give me this nonsense that
> Stalin was a seminarian. He was an atheist -- and a man filled with hate --
> from even before his mother put him in the seminary, which he hated, and from
> which he was eventually expelled.)
I don't need to have to deny anything you say about Stalin, even if it
is doubtful.
Stalin and I may have atheism in common, but that doesn't mean that in
his position I would chose to do the same actions. You have no
evidence to say otherwise, so please quit your casual slander.
You may as well say that both Stalin's and Sadam's tyrany are down to
the fact that they both have moustaches.
You are the one who preaches hate and Jesus would be ashamed of you.
Please grow up.
(-: Ian :-)
Young, Free and British without breasts
> Come to think of it,I cannot come up with anything atheists have done on the
> front line for missions,hospitals and such.
"Atheists have done"????
Unlike fascist complexes such as monotheistic religions, atheists
don't stick "made by athiests" on any creations because it is not like
a large mental organism designed to multiply.
I reckon 5% of all hospitals built in America are built by atheists,
44% of British hospitals built by atheists, Comic Relief, the biggest
charity about, a non-religious one. Most French charities will also be
non-religious. Atheism is just the lack of theism, you don't name
charities or endevours after it.
You're rants are just a part of your collective mental organisms's
defense mechanism based on misunderstanding and immunity to
information which would be harmful to it.
--
Iain
Will Coon
> On 23 Mar 2003 19:27:35 -0800, budi...@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote:
>
> >John W <john_we...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >news:<4mdq7vs8sbn0812r9...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
> >> world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their
> >> lives in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to
> >> stay there and serve God.
> >>
> >> Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
> >> believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our
> >> country; some of us join the Red Cross.
> >>
> >> Quit blaming we who built America.
> >>
> >> John W
> >
> >"we who built America"?
> >
> >You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little
> >faith in their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European
> >persecution by others who believed just as passionately in that same
> >myth to move to the USA, then robbed the locals of their land,
> >livelihoods, belief system and self respect, and now want to oppress
> >everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining lies, would you?
>
> I do not answer for the evil of my ancestors, or there'd be NO one
> without blame.
>
But you gladly take credit for what "good" they've done.
Thanks, by the way, for building America.
<snip>
WillCoon
Seeking to make L a low number.
Delicious and fictitious, tastes just like YHWH!
Ken Smith
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3E7EE973...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > Budikka wrote:
> > > John W wrote:
> > > You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little faith in
> > > their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European persecution
> >
> > No, but rather those who had such great faith that they moved to a barren
> > land so as to establish a nation where God would be honoured.
>
> Barren? Did you just crawl out from under a rock?
>
> Firstly, there were several _entire nations_ living in the continental
> USA before any european settlers arrived.
>
> Exactly how do you justify the use of the term barren to a land which
> could support literally millions of bison and the whole ecology needed
> to support them.
>
> In truth, continental america was and is so abundant with life that
> any attempt to describe it in one post is doomed to failure.
TeddiBeer KKKaldis has severe emotional problems. Rationality
is well beyond his present capacity.
walks...@dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.inc
>Budikka wrote:
>> John W wrote:
>>> Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
>>> world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their lives
>>> in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to stay
>>> there and serve God.
>>> Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
>>> believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our country;
>>> some of us join the Red Cross.
You know, it you did that because it was the right thing to do it
would be commendable. If you do that because it is what your god wants
you to, then it is the act of a craven coward.
>>> Quit blaming we who built America.
>> "we who built America"?
>> You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little faith in
>> their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European persecution
>No, but rather those who had such great faith that they moved to a
>barren land so as to establish a nation where God would be honoured.
By any chances are you referring to those that were kicked of of
Holland?
>> by others who believed just as passionately in that same myth to move to
>> the USA, then robbed the locals of their land, livelihoods, belief system
>> and self respect,
>The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
The land does not belong to anyone. Especially not any artificial
construct. You are but the care center of the land if you are a decent
person. But you JW, are 80 but decent. You are one of those that sees
no harm in destroying the world for the glory of your gods. The land
mass loan as the Americas were stolen from the people that lived there
by trickery and deceit. This is easy to notice if you read the
treaties in the area known as the United States. For those that are
actually interested in how this theft was made legal, check out the
Avalon project at Yale University.
>> and now want to oppress everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining
>> lies, would you?
>It is those rather who are WITHOUT God who practise oppression, and
You would not care to back that up with evidence would you? Of course
not for you have none. The greatest thefts of land have been done in
the name of god. This was done in the Americas. The original excuse is
they came here because the Europeans would not allow their strict
rules being displayed publicly. You see, just like today, xianity is
disruptive and destructive to society.
>whose lies can sustain no one. Like Stalin. (And don't give me this
>nonsense that Stalin was a seminarian. He was an atheist -- and a
As usual you ignore history. He did in fact attend a semenary called
he did in fact rule Russia with an iron fist.
>man filled with hate --
As to him being filled with hate, I can not say. As to you being
filled with hate, according to the post you make, yes you are.
>from even before his mother put him in the seminary, which he hated,
>and from which he was eventually expelled.)
That excuses your spiteful conduct in what manner? You are still
responsible for what you post.
Walksalone who does wish that the EAC would start numbering all of
these vile individuals so we can tell them apart. Reading a post from
one is extremely similar to read a post from any one of these hateful
small petty people.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet att.net
Ghostman
wrote:
> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
>> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway,
> unless you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
That's your opinion. The words "sin", "damnation", "christ" and "savior"
mean nothing to us. Kindly keep your delusions to yourself.
--
Ghostman
aa # 2011
EAC Nonexistent Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Bad Puns
"Don't be afraid, man is man-made."
[Greg Lake, "Infinite Space" - Emerson, Lake & Palmer]
John Hattan
>Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
>> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
>That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
>you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
We've already been over this. I don't harbor enough resentment towards
women or dark-skinned people to accept your religion.
Ken Smith
> Ian Braidwood wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> >> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
> > That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
As if it's done you any good, Mr. Mendacious Sodomite Fornicator....
Steve Knight
Kaldis) wrote:
>Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
>> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
>That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
>you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
That's blackmail. Legally, your Pixie would be up on charges for
fraud, extortion, criminal conspiracy/intent, mayhem and if I'm not
mistaken a shit load of RICO violations.
That for what you just said. Never mind depraved indifference for
suffering and life, the willful genocide of an entire planet, aiding
and abiding gruesome wars and battles and murdering first born.
If your god really existed, it ain't only the atheists in trouble,
Spanky, it's the whole universe.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
BDK
kal...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> >> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
> > That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
>
Blah, blah blah, that's what you think, Ted. Who gives a shit.
BDK
Ian Braidwood
> > Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
> >> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> >> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
> > That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
I can see you're a quick study, Theo.
Personally, I think belief should be more firmly based than on the
spiritual equivalent of a protection racket.
Call me picky, if you like.
Your arguement still cuts no ice...
...and I bet your beer's getting warm. :-)
(-: Ian :-)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>>> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway,
>> unless you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
> I can see you're a quick study, Theo.
There's no point in mincing words.
> Personally, I think belief should be more firmly based than on the
> spiritual equivalent of a protection racket.
This is no protection racket. It is God's plan of salvation as outlined in
His Word.
> Call me picky, if you like.
Alright then. You're picky.
> Your arguement still cuts no ice ...
It "cuts plenty of ice" with God. And God is the only One Who matters.
> ... and I bet your beer's getting warm. :-)
And I hear that that's how you pommie lot like it. But me, I prefer cold
ones.
Incenjucar
> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Ian Braidwood wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> >>>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
> >>> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
> >> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway,
> >> unless you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
>
> > I can see you're a quick study, Theo.
>
> There's no point in mincing words.
Would you prefer diced words?
> > Personally, I think belief should be more firmly based than on the
> > spiritual equivalent of a protection racket.
>
> This is no protection racket. It is God's plan of salvation as outlined
in
> His Word.
Oh?
What is the difference?
> > Call me picky, if you like.
>
> Alright then. You're picky.
>
> > Your arguement still cuts no ice ...
>
> It "cuts plenty of ice" with God. And God is the only One Who matters.
That's entirely opinion.
> > ... and I bet your beer's getting warm. :-)
>
> And I hear that that's how you pommie lot like it. But me, I prefer cold
> ones.
Pommie? I'm assuming this is a slur?
Me, I don't drink alc. Slurping rotten produce juice seems a bit.. off to
me.
Then again, I enjoy being capable of thought at all times.
John Baker
"Incenjucar" <Firew...@sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:3e810d17$1...@news.sti.net...
>
> Me, I don't drink alc. Slurping rotten produce juice seems a bit.. off to
> me.
>
> Then again, I enjoy being capable of thought at all times.
But that would imply that you're capable of thought at any time, which
clearly doesn't apply to Ted. <G>
>
>
Ken Smith
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3E80E56A...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Ian Braidwood wrote:
> > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > >> Ian Braidwood wrote:
> > >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >
> > >>>> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
> >
> > >>> That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
> >
> > >> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway,
> > >> unless you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
> >
> > > I can see you're a quick study, Theo.
> >
> > There's no point in mincing words.
>
> Would you prefer diced words?
Kaldis prefers menacing gays with his tyre-iron....
> > > Personally, I think belief should be more firmly based than on the
> > > spiritual equivalent of a protection racket.
> >
> > This is no protection racket. It is God's plan of salvation as outlined in
>
> > His Word.
>
> Oh?
>
> What is the difference?
Ted's one of the "enforcers." He's a racist, his friends are racist,
wouldn't you like to be a racist, too? :)
> > > Call me picky, if you like.
> >
> > Alright then. You're picky.
> >
> > > Your arguement still cuts no ice ...
> >
> > It "cuts plenty of ice" with God. And God is the only One Who matters.
>
> That's entirely opinion.
>
> > > ... and I bet your beer's getting warm. :-)
> >
> > And I hear that that's how you pommie lot like it. But me, I prefer cold
> > ones.
>
> Pommie? I'm assuming this is a slur?
Be thankful you aren't a Canadian.... :)
Incenjucar
"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3E812CA9...@concentric.net...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Subject: Re: Another Blast from Teddi-Beer, AFBL's Resident Racist (was
Re: Chretien: 'No need for war'....
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:46 -0600
> From: John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com>
> Organization: The Code Zone
> Newsgroups:
can.politics,alt.politics.british,aus.politics,alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.religi
on.christian.calvary-chapel
>
> Ken Smith <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
> >>
> >> Absolutely. Chretien has 2 strikes against him. #1: He's a frog. And
#2:
> >> he's Canadian. And Canadians aren't exactly noted for their leadership
on
> >> the battlefield.
> >
> > Gadzooks! Now, he's crackin' back on CANADIANS!!!
>
> Ted's just bummed because he can't think of a proper derugatory term for
> 'em. . .
Ian Braidwood
> This is no protection racket. It is God's plan of salvation as outlined in
> His Word.
But Theo, there is no God. Therfore, there is no plan of salvation or
anything else.
This is why I'm implying that you are slow on the uptake. All this
religious rubbish you keep pumping out, cuts no ice. If it did, it
wouldn't be needed, because we'd already be theists, but were not,
we're _athiests_.
> > Your arguement still cuts no ice ...
>
> It "cuts plenty of ice" with God. And God is the only One Who matters.
But Theo, there is no god, that's why what you say cuts no ice. You
may as well quote Harry Potter to us atheists as the Bible.
> > ... and I bet your beer's getting warm. :-)
>
> And I hear that that's how you pommie lot like it. But me, I prefer cold
> ones.
I prefer it cold too, in fact cold filtered; but then again we are
talking _lager_. Beer should be at room temperature, because its a
different type of drink altogether. Don't knock it till you've tried
it. :-)
(-: Ian :-)
Ian Braidwood
If it's a slur, it's on target. However, that's like being shot with a
marshmallow. :-)
> Me, I don't drink alc. Slurping rotten produce juice seems a bit.. off to
> me.
Each to his own, or not to his own, as the case may be. :-)
> Then again, I enjoy being capable of thought at all times.
What even when you're asleep? ;-)
Life's too serious to be sober _all_ the time.
(-: Ian :-)
Thomas P.
>On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:18:30 +0100, Thomas P.
><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>
>>><mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
>>>> The lord CREATEs evil..... So you think God is at war
>>>> with himself?
>>>> Michael
>
>>
>>So the answer is yes?
>
>Wrong answer... Both good and evil are provided for
>your education. If you had never seen evil you would
>have no defense against it.
>
>Michael
>>
So the answer is yes. God created evil. Your argument is pretty
"Alice in Wonderland". If there were no evil, why would I need a
defense against it?
Thomas P.
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:45:29 GMT, mic...@thelastchurch.borg posted in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>Wrong answer... Both good and evil are provided for
>>your education. If you had never seen evil you would
>>have no defense against it.
>
>If the Christian god hadn't created evil no one would need any defense
>against it.
God didn't think of that, and now he is too embarrassed to admit the
mistake.
News
<mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
news:ph798v4oaojoeikdb...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:18:30 +0100, Thomas P.
> <tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>
> >><mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
> >>> The lord CREATEs evil..... So you think God is at war
> >>> with himself?
> >>> Michael
>
> >
> >So the answer is yes?
>
> your education. If you had never seen evil you would
> have no defense against it.
>
> Michael
> >
> >
> >
>
> A preacher is the blind
> leading the blind...
>
> The Last Church
> http://www.thelastchurch.org
> mic...@thelastchurch.org
News
"Thomas P." <mailto:tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:krla8vghanv0t0rd2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:45:29 GMT, mic...@thelastchurch.borg wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:18:30 +0100, Thomas P.
> ><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
> >
> >>><mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
> >>>> The lord CREATEs evil..... So you think God is at war
> >>>> with himself?
> >>>> Michael
> >
> >>
> >>So the answer is yes?
> >
> >Wrong answer... Both good and evil are provided for
> >have no defense against it.
> >
> >Michael
> >>
>
> So the answer is yes. God created evil. Your argument is pretty
> "Alice in Wonderland". If there were no evil, why would I need a
> defense against it?
>
>
what's the beef?
Mark K. Bilbo
The Klad is around again?
This place is starting to look like Troll Central. I even caught myself
replying to nameless...
<brrrr>
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_________________________________________________________________
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
[Stephen Jay Gould]
Thomas P.
>On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:57:53 GMT, Al Klein
><ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>If the Christian god hadn't created evil no one would need any defense
>>against it.
>
>And if you never create any children they will never
>make any mistakes or get into trouble.
If that was the world god made, you would be right. But, according to
you, god created evil.
> If death were the end of all we know then it is
>foolish to go on. For the earth and all that it is
>will one day be Gone leaving no trace of humans.
Since the dance will not last forever, there is no point in dancing.
> Having been dead I know what is on the other side of
>that door. Here The evil mistakes of Children can't
>cause any real harm.
How about the evil created by god?
> God created man there for he is responsible for the
>evils they commit, even though he would rather they
>didn't do it. How ever, when you create a child you
>have to know it is going to Crap in its pants and even
>on you. All beings have a learning curve. All spirits
>need a place to learn. The body is the womb of the
>spirit.
> The uneducated create their own evils and
> education Is the only cure.
> God wills that all people come to the knowledge of
>the truth. What you do not learn in life you will in
>death.
>
> Such is the fate of Creatures of free will. WE can
>only teach ourselves.
Totally ignores the earlier claim that god created evil.
Thomas P.
wrote:
The refusal of people to see the immorality and idiocy of
Christianity.
Baruch
anything. The Christians aren't going to change their views ecause of what
you say. Atheists already agree with you. If it makes you happy, then go
for it, but you're not making a dent in what people believe. If anything,
if you are hostile towards Christians, you only entrench them more deeply.
Baruch
> >>> Ian Braidwood wrote:
> >>> You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
> >>> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
>
In other words, believe in a loving, nurturing God, or He will cause (or
allow) you to be tortured endlessly without any hope of it stopping. Do you
see any sort of conflict here?.
> Braidwood could not be more wrong. All people get the
> same reward, the Good The bad And the ugly. Christians
> don't have the inside track. God wills that ALL people
> come to the knowledge of the truth.
>
> Read your own bible:
>
> "If any
> man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least
> thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of
> grace,
> and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly." -------
>
>
> ALL MEN COMMITTED TO CHRIST'S CARE
> God hath given all things to Christ, as the moral Ruler
> of the world.
> "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine
> inheritance,
> and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
> possession." Psalms 2:8
> "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
> into his hand."
> John 3:35 "All things," here, means all intelligent
> beings.
> God gave all beings to Christ that he might save them.
> "Thou hast
> given him power over all flesh, that he should give
> eternal life to as
> many as thou hast given him." John 7:2 This plainly
> evinces, that it
> was God's design, in giving Christ dominion over all
> flesh, that they
> should all enjoy eternal life.
>
> It is certain that Christ will save all that the Father
> hath given
> him. "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me,
> and him that
> cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." John 6:37
> These three
> propositions are irrefragable evidence of the final
> happiness of all
> men. 1st. God hath given all things to Christ. 2d. All
> that God hath
> given him shall come to him; and 3d. him that cometh he
> will in nowise
> cast out. All are given; all shall come; and none shall
> be cast out.
> What is the unavoidable conclusion?
>
> THE WILL OF GOD
> It is THE WILL of God that all men shall be saved. "Who
> will have all
> men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the
> truth." KJV 1Tim.
> 2:4 By "all men", in this passage, is undoubtedly to be
> understood all
> the human race. Salvation comes through the belief of
> the truth. God
> wills that all men should come to the knowledge of the
> truth, and be
> saved thereby.
>
> Heb. 10:9 The will of God is, that all men be saved.
> This is his will,
> by way of distinction and preeminence. Jesus came to do
> this will. He
> came as the Savior, as the Savior of all men. He came
> as the good
> Shepherd, to seek and save that which was lost. He came
> to save all
> men, not only those who lived on the earth while he was
> here, but all
> who lived before, and all who have since lived, and all
> who shall
> live. Jesus gave himself a ransom for all; he tasted
> death for every
> man; and unto him, at last, every knee shall bow, and
> every tongure
> shall confess him Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
> Such is the
> way in which Jesus does the will of God.
>
> The will of God cannot be resisted. "He doeth according
> to his will in
> the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the
> earth; and none
> can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"
> Dan. 4:35. Who
> can resist a being of Almighty power? What God wills to
> take place,
> must take place. He wills the salvation of all men
> because it is
> right. A God of purity cannot desire endless sin and
> rebellion. If he
> wills the salvation of all men, he wills all the means
> by which it
> shall be accomplished; it must therefore take place.
>
> God has no other will besides the will to save all men.
> "He is in one
> mind, and who can turn him." Job 23:13.
>
> In the mind of Christ
> Michael
fnord
<mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:18:30 +0100, Thomas P.
> <tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>
> >><mic...@thelastchurch.borg> wrote in message
> >>> The lord CREATEs evil..... So you think God is at war
> >>> with himself?
> >>> Michael
>
> >
> >So the answer is yes?
>
> Wrong answer... Both good and evil are provided for
> your education. If you had never seen evil you would
> have no defense against it.
And if go hadn't created evil, we wouldn't need a defense against it.
Andromeda
"fnord" <fno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:300320031232078338%fno...@yahoo.com...
Man creates his own evil. As Gandhi so put it .. the only devils to fear,
are the ones running around in our own heart.
--
FREETHOUGHT ARTICLES AND OTHER EXCELLENT STUFF
www.angelfire.com/pro/freethought/directory.html
stoney
<bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>, Message ID: <b679jk$k0d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >>> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>> >>> You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
>> >>> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
>>
>
>In other words, believe in a loving, nurturing God, or He will cause (or
>allow) you to be tortured endlessly without any hope of it stopping. Do you
>see any sort of conflict here?.
Don't forget 'believe and burn anyway.' By definition, such is 'good.'
(snip)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Baruch
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
news:7c17bff8bd47e5cc...@news.teranews.com...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:30:30 -0600, "Baruch"
> <bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>, Message ID: <b679jk$k0d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> >> >>> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
> >>
> >
> >In other words, believe in a loving, nurturing God, or He will cause (or
> >allow) you to be tortured endlessly without any hope of it stopping. Do
you
> >see any sort of conflict here?.
>
> Don't forget 'believe and burn anyway.' By definition, such is 'good.'
>
else", not "believe and burn anyway". Did they change the rules again?
James Conley
Go read the book of Job and come back and explain it to me.
Then I will know that you understand who God truely is. Otherwise I know
that you have no idea of what you speak.
james c.
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
news:7c17bff8bd47e5cc...@news.teranews.com...
Baruch
have not read. To tell me to go read the book of Job implies that I have
not read it, which is incorrect. I have puzzled over that book for quite
some time.
Basically, God makes a "bet" with Satan, who in this story is one of God's
sons. An angel, in fact. God allows Satan to torment Job, first in his
possessions, then in his person. Satan obediently observes the limitations
imposed by God, and afflicts Job with catastrophes and illnesses. Job
questions the justice of this, and God basically tells him that he doesn't
understand the workings of God, which are beyond Job's comprehension.
Like Job, I find God's actions in this story beyond my comprehension. About
all that seems to be said is that God is powerful enough that He can afflict
anyone for any reason, with or without him committing sins, and no one has
the right to question it. Basically that puts God in the came category as
Hussein, Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and any other dictator. He can do
this because He has the power, and no one can stop Him. Does this make it
right?
Nowhere have I claimed to have cornered the market on "Justice", nor have I
said I understand what Justice is. I don't know where you get your ideas.
To my understanding it is not God who says "believe or burn", it is people
who say this. Those people are, IMNSHO, full of shit. They are trying to
frighten others into following their creed, whatever it may be. In this
country it's Christianity, mostly. In some others, it's Islam. The Eastern
religions seem not to use force of threats to gain converts. The idea of
"believe or burn" is wholly unjust, also IMNSHO. It is put forth by
narrow-minded, constipated, stunted human beings who have little joy and
less compassion in their hearts. Perhaps fear is what keeps them from
committing crimes against others. Perhaps they need to be scared into
toeing the mark. I don't know. However, it is my firm belief that God does
not work this way.
I don't quite understand your comment that I don't know what I speak. I
wasn't making much of a statement, other than "believe or burn" is your
basic argumentum ad bacculum. It is an appeal to force, like "vote for me
or I'll break your legs". Doesn't make it right, even if you are frightened
into agreeing.
"James Conley" <a9j...@nospam.JoiMail.com> wrote in message
news:b6b3nk$tcq$1...@news.chatlink.com...
stoney
<a9j...@nospam.JoiMail.com>, Message ID:
<b6b3nk$tcq$1...@news.chatlink.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
The drooling top poster dribbled the following spittle....
>You've apparently cornered the market on Justice and left none for God.
Too bad Mr. Conley's lying his ass off again.
>Go read the book of Job and come back and explain it to me.
>Then I will know that you understand who God truely is. Otherwise I know
>that you have no idea of what you speak.
(laughing at you) Why would I want to read again such a piss poor and
malevolent work of bronze age savages that couldn't tell their ass from
a hole in the ground?
>james c.
>
>"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
>news:7c17bff8bd47e5cc...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:30:30 -0600, "Baruch"
>> <bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>, Message ID: <b679jk$k0d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>> >> >>> You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
>> >> >>> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In other words, believe in a loving, nurturing God, or He will cause (or
>> >allow) you to be tortured endlessly without any hope of it stopping. Do
>you
>> >see any sort of conflict here?.
>>
>> Don't forget 'believe and burn anyway.' By definition, such is 'good.'
Stoney
stoney
<bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>, Message ID: <b6aptf$jvm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
>news:7c17bff8bd47e5cc...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:30:30 -0600, "Baruch"
>> <bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>, Message ID: <b679jk$k0d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
> >> >>> You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
>> >> >>> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In other words, believe in a loving, nurturing God, or He will cause (or
>> >allow) you to be tortured endlessly without any hope of it stopping. Do
>you
>> >see any sort of conflict here?.
>>
>> Don't forget 'believe and burn anyway.' By definition, such is 'good.'
>>
>I don't follow you - what are you saying? I thought it was "believe or
>else", not "believe and burn anyway". Did they change the rules again?
What 'rules?' However, by definition, *anything* the xtian daemon god
does is 'good.' Christianity has a tendency to focus on binary even
when the actual situation is trinary.
angel
really the Nazis. Others may have qualities we don't like, that may
even be those the Nazis exhibited. But that doesn't make them Nazis.
The way some atheists want to stamp out religious people, they are
similar to Nazis who wanted to stamp out certain people.
Some theists do much the same thing - for example, killing workers in
abortion clinics on the theory that it's OK to murder people in order
to prevent "murder".
But the way many theists portray God, I'd say it's God who's the real
Nazi - if these theists are right. It's enough to give the poor Guy a
bad name.
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3E7EE973...@worldnet.att.net>...
> Budikka wrote:
>
> > John W wrote:
>
> >> Yep. Forget the hospitals and universities we've built all over the
> >> world. Forget the hundreds of Christian missionaries risking their lives
> >> in real time in the Middle East right now because they choose to stay
> >> there and serve God.
>
> >> Forget all the good we'v done and continue to do and just hate us for
> >> believing in and striving to honor God. Some of us fight for our country;
> >> some of us join the Red Cross.
>
> >> Quit blaming we who built America.
>
> > "we who built America"?
>
> > You wouldn't be talking about those same people who had so little faith in
> > their God's ability to protect them that they *fled* European persecution
>
> No, but rather those who had such great faith that they moved to a barren
> land so as to establish a nation where God would be honoured.
>
> > by others who believed just as passionately in that same myth to move to
> > the USA, then robbed the locals of their land, livelihoods, belief system
> > and self respect,
>
> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
> > and now want to oppress everyone who doesn't buy into their self-sustaining
> > lies, would you?
>
> It is those rather who are WITHOUT God who practise oppression, and whose
> lies can sustain no one. Like Stalin. (And don't give me this nonsense that
> Stalin was a seminarian. He was an atheist -- and a man filled with hate --
> from even before his mother put him in the seminary, which he hated, and from
> which he was eventually expelled.)
angel
If it's true that God says "believe or burn", then He's no better than
Hitler or Hussein or any other thug. He is simply commanding
obedience through force, not through love or respect.
To claim that anyone who doesn't believe your version of the Bible
(which you've never read, unless you speak Biblical Greek and Hebrew)
will be tortured eternally is sheer bullying. It has absolutely no
place with a loving God. It is nothing more than the effort of Paul
and others to compel obedience to him and his new cult.
Jesus didn't teach this. He specifically said that there were others
who would be saved(or something to that effect; I don't have a Bible
at the moment). In many places in the Bible it says, "*whosoever*
calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved". It doesn't say that
these people must commit idolatry by worshipping a human being, no
matter how noble that human may have been. It doesn't say that they
have to call the LORD "Jesus".
You would do well to study what it means to call upon the *name* of
the LORD, or to use His name. You can parrot "in the name of Jesus"
or "in the name of the LORD" all you want, but that doesn't give you
power and authority. You're just reciting a magic formula, and one
that doesn't work.
If you are *in* the name of the LORD, you don't have to say it. If
you are not, then saying it will do nothing at all for you - it is a
vain repetition.
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3E80E56A...@worldnet.att.net>...
angelicusrex
types: Fallen Angels, who burn eternally in a lake of ETERNALLY burning fire
(because they cannot be killed...) and leaders, priests and kings, or in a
word, politicians, who lead people astray. God was never against the common
man, whom he understood was easily conned (especially by Angels,
apparently!) He was against those who utilized their intelligence to trick
and burden others unbearably. Those people would be burned up completely and
their ashes ground to dust and the dust blown away so that no one would ever
hear from them again. It was sort of the people's way of fantasizing about
ridding themselves of the worthless scoundrels who taxed them to death or
ruled with iron fists and rods and the sword etc. This was one reason Jesus
was so adamant against the Pharisees, Sadducees and Sanhedrin and
Priesthood. They were the ones on the "road to perdition" whereas he felt
those who confessed their sins openly and would say they repented would be
immediately allowed into God's Kingdom...on Jesus' say-so and good name.
However all the Goyim were pretty much exempt from the lakes of fire and
torments. Jesus himself considered them very unworthy of attention. Though
he was often shocked that the Romans, Greeks and Samaritans often acted in
and had more faith than the Hebrews around him did. Certainly he knew those
who were "sinners" (whores, wine-bibs, tax-collectors, etc), were people who
would repent immediately if given half a chance. Which is why he hung out
with them. And which is why the others hated him.
Later Christianity came up with the vicious idea that everyone who isn't a
Christian or Baptized would burn. neither the old Jews nor the Early
Christian fathers believed that!
This can all be found in the Bible.
What people tell us on this NG and elsewhere is dogma, and mostly taken way
out of context. You won't burn just because you aren't a Christian. Nor
because you are an atheist. But the Bible does say you will, if you lead
people astray and misuse them and abuse them.
So it isn't that hard to get on God's good side. You say "I'm sorry" and
that's about it. All the rest is ritualistic mumbo-jumbo.
Saint
Baruch
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
news:56a0484ec6d9ec34...@news.teranews.com...
david asman
angelicusrex wrote:
I'm curious about what I should be apologizing for?
Dave
angel
<snip>
> I'm curious about what I should be apologizing for?
>
> Dave
Doing things that hurt people unnecessarily. First you apologize to
them. Then you apologize to God. Pretty simple, really. If you
absolutely won't consider talking to God, then it suffices to make
amends to the people you've hurt.
Dr. Smartass
news:ff066f10.03040...@posting.google.com:
And who, pray tell, has he "hurt"?
--
"We can support the troops without supporting the president."
-Trent Lott, during Kosovo
David H. Ellison
angel wrote:
Or deal with it and move on, no apology necessary. Guilt (as any psychologist will point
out ) is just one more unnecessary neurosis. Unless Angel thinks there is someplace in
you hidden from God, I wouldn't worry about it...
BTW Angel, thanks for the meaningless crossposts.
angelicusrex
"You" shouldn't apologize for anything. Unless "You" feel it is necessary. I
was doing an exposition on what the Bible really says about burning in
hell-fire. There's a lot more as well, however "You" may not believe it. If
not, don't worry about it. I don't believe in voodoo, so I don't make
sacrifices to Papa Legbah. Others do. Others do other things. It's all O.K.
for me. I just want Christians to stop telling totally innocent people they
will "burn in hell" when that was never the intent of the Bible. It is an
evil thing for them to do.
Saint
"david asman" <das...@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:3E8C410F...@wayne.edu...
>
>
angelicusrex
news:3E8CD428...@myseeing.com...
> Or deal with it and move on, no apology necessary. Guilt (as any
psychologist will point
> out ) is just one more unnecessary neurosis. Unless Angel thinks there is
someplace in
> you hidden from God, I wouldn't worry about it...
>
> BTW Angel, thanks for the meaningless crossposts.
>
>
Ahhh, Ellison is back from his long hiatus...
No one is talking about a false sense of guilt here. However most human
beings who aren't totally psychopathic personalities, have some regrets, or
often feel they have done some things wrong or could have done something
more, or better, or with more feeling or love. If "You" feel that way,
making amends and apologizing is a good way to relieve oneself of the
ensuing build up of bad feelings. This is a wonderful proposition of yours,
Doctor Ellison, that guilt is simply one more neurosis. It may be. But
feeling sorry for having stolen something, or hurt someone by cheating on
them, or cheating at school work, or other things, usually demands an
apology. If one simply "accepts it and moves on" one can quickly become a
heartless automaton, unwilling to regret or feel sorry for anyone or
anything. Conversely, most really good psychiatric professionals will tell
you that confession, remembrance and allowing oneself to express feelings of
guilt and or a troubled conscience are really the quickest way of healing
and getting on with one's life. Not everyone may be as capable as you are of
"walking it off" as they say, and just getting over an incident. For
instance a rape victim or victim of child molestation might feel guilty for
most of their lives because they tried to stuff their feelings and walk away
from the incident as if it never happened. they need to unburden themselves
of such guilt. And the guilty party had best make some amends somewhere down
the line, or they will wind up in a small cell having done to them what they
did to someone else.
You'll notice I did not mention God nor Angels until this moment. because it
is not necessary, just as Angel says, to even talk to God. It is more
important to express to oneself and to one's social group or the offended
party.
Unless you live in a world where you can blithely walk away from every
rotten thing people, including oneself can be capable of, most of us need to
unburden at times. Of course this doesn't count with supermen like yourself.
LOL! You are immune to all human emotions as far as I can see and live only
to contradict posts which you previously considered to be useless...which is
a kind of an odd habit.
I don't know what sort of psychologists you have been talking to, but if
they are telling you that you should never feel guilty, they are setting you
up for a really bad life. Guilt is built-in to most people. And most of
psychology deals with it on a series of very difficult levels. it may be a
"useless neurosis" but unfortunately it is a near universal one.
Saint
Puddleshitz
<b6io04$5mtv9$1...@ID-168098.news.dfncis.de>...
> Guilt is built-in to most people.
And it's DRIVEN-in when total strangers stare at whispe...@msn.com
after they've read the vile things he's written in
alt.religion.angels. Talk about the past catching up to you!! I don't
know how this guy can leave his house - everywhere he turns around -
people know what kind of man(?) he really is. The mailman, his
neighbors, the librarians, the store clerks, security, his "case"
worker, and family...
Yuck.
> Saint
Baruch
hurting someone. If he has managed that, then of course there's no one to
apologize to, and he's OK.
"Dr. Smartass" <gek...@astroboymail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9352B108DDDF...@65.82.44.187...
Baruch
stoney
<whispe...@msn.com>, Message ID:
<b6g1l0$4urbb$1...@ID-168098.news.dfncis.de> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Dear Stoner, you bottom posting, bottom feeding fuck...
Ah, Davey has the hots for me.... Too bad for you that I don't swing
that way.
>Stop using the technique of changing your e-mail address every fucking time
>you post so you can get seen by all those who would rather not see your
>baboon like posts!
I'll leave the above technique to priest felchers like you, Dave. My
email addy hase been the same for years, but you knew that.
> How dare you talk Internet Manners when you have none
>yourself!? No one here at a.r.a. wants to read you crap. So stop throwing it
>around like a gorilla at the zoo. Some of us want to kill-file you because
>you are a smug, self-serving son of a bitch. So do the world a favor and go
>back to hiding under your alt.flame.jesus.christ/alt.atheism rock!
>
>You officious little prick!
Laughing at the pussy who posted his rant and reset the follow-ups.
>Saint
>"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message Not one damn thing that
>was of any import!
stoney
Message ID: <EWSia.31859$JI.81...@twister.neo.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
John, the cowardly pussy won't see your post since she reset the
follow-ups. But yes, she is the epitome of "Christian Love(tm)."
>
>"angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:b6g1l0$4urbb$1...@ID-168098.news.dfncis.de...
>> Dear Stoner, you bottom posting, bottom feeding fuck...
>> Stop using the technique of changing your e-mail address every fucking
>time
>> you post so you can get seen by all those who would rather not see your
>> baboon like posts! How dare you talk Internet Manners when you have none
>> yourself!? No one here at a.r.a. wants to read you crap. So stop throwing
>it
>> around like a gorilla at the zoo. Some of us want to kill-file you because
>> you are a smug, self-serving son of a bitch. So do the world a favor and
>go
>> back to hiding under your alt.flame.jesus.christ/alt.atheism rock!
>>
>> You officious little prick!
>>
>> Saint
>
>My, my! Can't you just feel the warm glow of Christian love radiating from
>this post? LMAO!
stoney
<gek...@astroboymail.com>, Message ID:
<Xns9351D5DDECAC...@65.82.44.187> wrote in alt.atheism;
The priest felching pussy won't see what you wrote doc since she reset
follow-ups. I fixed it for you.
>"angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in
>news:b6g1l0$4urbb$1...@ID-168098.news.dfncis.de:
>
>> Dear Stoner, you bottom posting, bottom feeding fuck...
>> Stop using the technique of changing your e-mail address every fucking
>> time you post so you can get seen by all those who would rather not
>> see your baboon like posts! How dare you talk Internet Manners when
>> you have none yourself!? No one here at a.r.a. wants to read you crap.
>> So stop throwing it around like a gorilla at the zoo. Some of us want
>> to kill-file you because you are a smug, self-serving son of a bitch.
>> So do the world a favor and go back to hiding under your
>> alt.flame.jesus.christ/alt.atheism rock!
>>
>> You officious little prick!
>>
>> Saint
>> "stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message Not one damn thing
>> that was of any import!
>
>Hey, pissy boy...if it wasn't important, why'd you spend so much time
>writing a flame instead of just wiping your ass and getting back to "Dukes
>of Hazzard" ?
stoney
<ff066f10.03040...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
(snip)
>. He specifically said that there were others
>who would be saved(or something to that effect; I don't have a Bible
>at the moment).
http://www.biblegateway.com has different versions online with a search
engine.
Then there's the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible"
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
(snip)
stoney
Message ID: <b6gdms$mik$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Hey, I don't know. I thought they had some rules about that stuff.
Well, come to think of it there is one. The single rule is "Obey God."
Unfortunately, that's the one thing Christians don't do.
stoney
Message ID: <3E8C410F...@wayne.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
Nothing to apologize for, the xtian's big book of drooling idiocy says
so. Of course, Davida will get her knickers in a twist about it. Then
again, her fictional daemon has no 'good side.'
.1 Thessalonians 5 (KJV)
18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God
in Christ Jesus concerning you.
Baruch
disbelieve in God, of course, aren't going to worry about it. People who
*do* believe in God usually think their religion is the ONE TRUE WAY, and
follow those leaders instead of God.
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
> >>
angelicusrex
christian.
Saint
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
news:8a05b28d196610e1...@news.teranews.com...
John Baker
> You people aren't worth any more of my time or energy. BTW, I am NOT a
> christian.
You've heard the saying about the screen door.......
david asman
angel wrote:
Well I can deal with the apologizing to people I've hurt part, except of course for the
people I've hurt and don't realize it. I won't consider talking to any gods since I
don't believe in any of them. I got the impression from your post that you were saying
that humans had something to apologize for as a default-- if I got the wrong impression,
I apologize.
Dave
david asman
Baruch wrote:
> Whoever. I don't think anyone can go through life without occasionally
> hurting someone. If he has managed that, then of course there's no one to
> apologize to, and he's OK.
>
Well I never claimed and do not believe that I have never harmed anyone. I
was left with the impression that the original poster was suggesting that I
had to apologize to a god as sort of a default position for being alive. I
was wondering if that were the case what I had done that was so wrong that
would require me to apologize to god from the get go.
Since I don't believe in any gods, I was more wondering what the original
poster had meant more than asking for a guide on what to do. That person has
addressed the issue in another post. . .
Dave
david asman
stoney wrote:
I wish there was a way that I could get more clues into my post about my intended
tone of voice. There was a slight twinge of sarcasm, but not a completely super
sarcastic tone. If there is a way to convey that in writing, let me know.
Dave
david asman
angelicusrex wrote:
> David,
> "You" shouldn't apologize for anything. Unless "You" feel it is necessary. I
> was doing an exposition on what the Bible really says about burning in
> hell-fire. There's a lot more as well, however "You" may not believe it. If
> not, don't worry about it. I don't believe in voodoo, so I don't make
> sacrifices to Papa Legbah. Others do. Others do other things. It's all O.K.
> for me. I just want Christians to stop telling totally innocent people they
> will "burn in hell" when that was never the intent of the Bible. It is an
> evil thing for them to do.
Thanks for the info. I think some Christians do not realize the lack of
persuasive power that threatening people with hellfire can have. Sure it can
work to convert people--after all who wants to be tortured for an eternity
(although I can't imagine doing anything for an eternity that wouldn't
eventually become torture). It works against them in that it seems highly
unlikely that an omnibenevolent god would punish people for an eternity for a
finite transgression.
It also can work as a tool for people to realize the stupidity of the whole
damnation concept. Think of me asking me my mother how she could spend an
eternity of happiness in heaven, knowing full well that I'm being tortured for
an eternity in hell.
Dave
David H. Ellison
angelicusrex wrote:
> "David H. Ellison" <loo...@myseeing.com> wrote in message
> news:3E8CD428...@myseeing.com...
>
> > Or deal with it and move on, no apology necessary. Guilt (as any
> psychologist will point
> > out ) is just one more unnecessary neurosis. Unless Angel thinks there is
> someplace in
> > you hidden from God, I wouldn't worry about it...
> >
> > BTW Angel, thanks for the meaningless crossposts.
> >
> >
>
> Ahhh, Ellison is back from his long hiatus...
Not really, sir.
> No one is talking about a false sense of guilt here. However most human
> beings who aren't totally psychopathic personalities, have some regrets, or
> often feel they have done some things wrong or could have done something
> more, or better, or with more feeling or love.
Which is not the same as guilt. I understand regrets, I feel it is necessary to
deal with them if at all posible and move on, if not, I feel it is better to
accept what has happened, and not to dwell negativly on either action or
inaction. Sometimes and event plays a larger part in your life, than it does in
another. I don't think God needs things explained - God knows.
> If "You" feel that way,
> making amends and apologizing is a good way to relieve oneself of the
> ensuing build up of bad feelings. This is a wonderful proposition of yours,
> Doctor Ellison, that guilt is simply one more neurosis. It may be.
Actually, I cannot take credit for this, nor am I a Dr. (yet?), the idea of
guilt as neurosis predates Freud, the modern father of guilt. ;-)
> But
> feeling sorry for having stolen something, or hurt someone by cheating on
> them, or cheating at school work, or other things, usually demands an
> apology. If one simply "accepts it and moves on" one can quickly become a
> heartless automaton, unwilling to regret or feel sorry for anyone or
> anything.
I would agree, that it demands a reponse, apology is one way to go... I'm busy
apologizing to Baruch at the moment, for a few inappropiate responses that I
made to his posts. I won't dwell on it, and I won't torment myself about what
I've done or said in life. But please, by all means, feel free to stress out.
> Conversely, most really good psychiatric professionals will tell
> you that confession, remembrance and allowing oneself to express feelings of
> guilt and or a troubled conscience are really the quickest way of healing
> and getting on with one's life.
I agree.
> Not everyone may be as capable as you are of
> "walking it off" as they say, and just getting over an incident. For
> instance a rape victim or victim of child molestation might feel guilty for
> most of their lives because they tried to stuff their feelings and walk away
> from the incident as if it never happened. they need to unburden themselves
> of such guilt. And the guilty party had best make some amends somewhere down
> the line, or they will wind up in a small cell having done to them what they
> did to someone else.
A grim picture Dave.
> You'll notice I did not mention God nor Angels until this moment. because it
> is not necessary, just as Angel says, to even talk to God. It is more
> important to express to oneself and to one's social group or the offended
> party.
>
> Unless you live in a world where you can blithely walk away from every
> rotten thing people, including oneself can be capable of, most of us need to
> unburden at times. Of course this doesn't count with supermen like yourself.
> LOL!
LOL, indeed. I am far from superman.
> You are immune to all human emotions as far as I can see and live only
> to contradict posts which you previously considered to be useless...which is
> a kind of an odd habit.
It is always interesting to see oneself through someone else's eyes, is it not?
Easier too, if preconception and emotion can be temporarily compartmentalized.
Nothing truely exists in a vacum, everything is connected, and Heisenberg is as
surely my uncertain companion, as he is yours.
> I don't know what sort of psychologists you have been talking to, but if
> they are telling you that you should never feel guilty, they are setting you
> up for a really bad life.
You feel that a life without guilt is bad? Perhaps we are thinking of guilt as
two different things?
> Guilt is built-in to most people.
Enculturated, or do you believe it to be natures curse?
> And most of
> psychology deals with it on a series of very difficult levels.
Which I take as proof of his harmful nature.
> it may be a
> "useless neurosis" but unfortunately it is a near universal one.
>
> Saint
BTW congrats on your 3.75. I graduate in june (after 2yrs), and I know how nerve
racking maintaining a good average can be. I also believe that it is worth it...
on many levels.
David H. Ellison
stoney
Message ID: <b6iu5u$r97$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>I don't know too many people who take that rule seriously. People who
>disbelieve in God, of course, aren't going to worry about it. People who
>*do* believe in God usually think their religion is the ONE TRUE WAY, and
>follow those leaders instead of God.
Rule="Obey God."
Indeed. Those leaders are "God."
(snip)
stoney
Message ID: <3E8D9822...@wayne.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>
>stoney wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:11:27 -0500, david asman <das...@wayne.edu>,
>> Message ID: <3E8C410F...@wayne.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >angelicusrex wrote:
(snip)
>> >I'm curious about what I should be apologizing for?
>>
>> Nothing to apologize for, the xtian's big book of drooling idiocy says
>> so. Of course, Davida will get her knickers in a twist about it. Then
>> again, her fictional daemon has no 'good side.'
>>
>
>I wish there was a way that I could get more clues into my post about my intended
>tone of voice. There was a slight twinge of sarcasm, but not a completely super
>sarcastic tone. If there is a way to convey that in writing, let me know.
Note: "Davida" is 'rex.'
Why not put something like; /slight sarcasm? Open and close to
indicate tonal change.
stoney
<whispe...@msn.com>, Message ID:
<b6j6ts$5poif$1...@ID-168098.news.dfncis.de> wrote in alt.atheism;
>You people aren't worth any more of my time or energy. BTW, I am NOT a
>christian.
Ok, you're just another asshole then.
stoney
<ff066f10.03040...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>david asman <das...@wayne.edu> wrote in message news:<3E8C410F...@wayne.edu>...
><snip>
>
>> I'm curious about what I should be apologizing for?
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>Doing things that hurt people unnecessarily. First you apologize to
>them. Then you apologize to God. Pretty simple, really. If you
>absolutely won't consider talking to God, then it suffices to make
>amends to the people you've hurt.
What's there to talk 'to' (god), much less apologize to?
Keep in mind that according to the xtian superstition we are all actors
hitting our marks and spouting our lines in a pointless play scripted
eons ago.
angelicusrex
Since you seem to be being nice today, I will respond in kind. My last
response was based on the enormous amount of very bad feelings you seemed to
be doling out to me over the years. And it was hard to tell if you were
being sarcastic, especially when you accused Baruch of cross-posting
"meaningless posts."
I don't approve of the cross posting, and many of the posts that come up are
indeed rude and meaningless, if not truly debilitating. I send numerous
posts back to the crossers, but without alt.angels in the headers. So there
won't be as much of a cross-post war going on. But sometimes I do forget to
take a.r.a out of the headers...or they post here through someone else. like
Baruch, and it seems like chaos.
I am going to try really hard not to pay anymore attention to the
crossposts, since they really don't have much to do with anything I want to
talk about. But I don't think it is entirely Baruch's fault. The guy named
Rev Stone does what you do, which is somehow changing his e-mail addy every
post, so he shows up no matter how much I kill file him. As do you. This
seems to be a method of forcing people to talk about things with people they
would rather not hear from. It is a bit like taunting a person to fight. And
sometimes I do fight. But again, I have been trying hard not to.
> > Ahhh, Ellison is back from his long hiatus...
>
> Not really, sir.
Well you seemed to be gone to me. I haven't seen one post from you in a
month or so.
>... I understand regrets, I feel it is necessary to
> deal with them if at all posible and move on, if not, I feel it is better
to
> accept what has happened, and not to dwell negativly on either action or
> inaction.
This is a good policy. But very hard for most people without an initial
expression of emotion. A good cry for instance. And touching the sore spot
in one's heart where there is pain or guilt and emoting is, I feel, a good
thing.
> Sometimes and event plays a larger part in your life, than it does in
> another. I don't think God needs things explained - God knows.
Of course God doesn't need to have things explained. But sometimes I think
we need to verbalize it to God anyway, for our own benefit. He knows this.
And is very patient with our chest beating and our emotions.
Of course a lot of my whole previous post was for the benefit of those who
don't believe in God, or feel that only the seriously upsetting christian
version of guilt, (i.e. we are all damned unless we accept Christ), are the
only two ways of dealing with a sense of guilt. My post was describing why
people should not fear God's wrath. Because it was never meant for innocent,
abused people. God will never make us feel guilty, because indeed, He does
know the whole score.
> Actually, I cannot take credit for this, nor am I a Dr. (yet?), the idea
of
> guilt as neurosis predates Freud, the modern father of guilt. ;-)
I don't know...I thought Freud invented Neurosis. That is he discovered that
many neurotic fears and behaviors were connected with a deep sense of guilt
and fear of not "coming up to someone else's standards." It was his work
with "hysterics" (which was the word used before neurosis I believe) and
hysterical diseases, that gave us an insight into the huge amount of guilt
we all repress.
>... I won't dwell on it, and I won't torment myself about what
> I've done or said in life.
Right, you don't want to continually dwell on it. But apologizing and moving
on is always a good move.
> But please, by all means, feel free to stress out.
My post had nothing to do with me personally. I have preached more than once
against burdening oneself with religious guilt, (the idea that God cannot
love us because we aren't perfect enough), etc. As you know. I am 100
percent against guilt tripping and taking on guilt for things we cannot
possibly be responsible for (like the whole world's problems, or the
multivarious reasons why David Ellison doesn;t like someone...etc.) So I am
not going to "stress out." there's no reason I should.
I don't believe in either Christian or Jewish 'guilt.' The idea that we
should be guilt for being alive and muddling through this life as best we
can, is to me, preposterous.
I am for meditation, scientific treatment using the principles of
affirmation and positive mental direction. I believe "thoughts are things."
(And no, none of this is my invention, it's just what I believe...) So
stressing out is far from what I will do today, thanks.
> >...And the guilty party had best make some amends somewhere down
> > the line, or they will wind up in a small cell having done to them what
they
> > did to someone else.
>
> A grim picture Dave.
Unfortunately one that is prevelant is almost all human society.
> LOL, indeed. I am far from superman.
Well I made that crack because you certainly don't seem to have any
"kryptonite vulnerabilities." Especially on-line. You seem to be impervious
to either being straight with people or feeling anything you do might have
hurt others. So I never really felt you had much human compassion. After
all, five long years of lambasting someone who basically tried to be your
friend, over some amazingly inane issues featuring people who have long
since disappeared, seems to me to be obsessive. (Boggle is still doing it.)
But somehow it sounds like you might have learned a few valuable life
lessons recently. I hope this is true. I know I have. However I have counted
on you once or twice before to have "matured" and found that I would be
bitterly disappointed with that conclusion.
Still, there is always hope.
> It is always interesting to see oneself through someone else's eyes, is it
not?
I really think that is nearly impossible. I wish I could understand how you
see me. But the distortion I get from your conception tells me that you
cannot possible be seeing the real me. Just as I know I cannot see the real
you. I only respond to the YOU that you offer me here. It isn't a very nice
version of you.
I'm sure to meet you in public or in a safe and sane environment that you
would be a very decent fellow. But on this NG, all I see is what you do and
say. So no, it's not interesting to see oneself through another person's
eyes, unless that person loves you or has your best interests at heart. It's
actually very disheartening to see oneself through another person's eyes,
especially when they seem to hate you for no good reason.
> Easier too, if preconception and emotion can be temporarily
compartmentalized.
Well that's hard to do with five years of history behind both of us, don't
you think? Don't you think I am just waiting for you to spring one of your
famous one line zingers of Psuedo-Zen witticism at me? Or can't you see the
tension you cause? I see your name and my heart sinks. My nerves get wound
up, ready for a fight, ready to hear you make fun of me or denounce me as a
liar or prostitute or some other hateful thing which all people despise. Do
you really think that I can suddenly compartmentalize my emotion? It is like
a jack-in-the-box. All I need is to see your name. And out my emotions pop!
For a month I haven't seen your name. It made me rest easy. I thought:
"Thank God! He's finally done hassling me!" But then there you are...oddly
not hassling me, but rather Baruch! Which was plain weird. So I got
super-suspicious. And yes. I taunted you a bit. But you seem to have taken
it well and without using your usual ascerbic wit. Although I noted you had
to tell me to "stress out." When if fact you know I am not stressed at all
by guilt.
> Nothing truely exists in a vacuum,
True So don't expect that someone you've sent generous amounts of hate-mail
to will see your posting name and get all warm and fuzzy about it! LOL!
> everything is connected, and Heisenberg is as
> surely my uncertain companion, as he is yours.
I don't know who you are referencing with Heisenberg.
> You feel that a life without guilt is bad?
That's not what I said. All people have guilt. They need to unburden
themselves of it. But conversely, all good people can become guilty of doing
bad things. Even after they've been forgiven for doig a bad thing.
Guilt is a warning sign. Just as is fear. Yes, people are too obsessed with
it. But it does have a purpose. If one cheats on their wife and feels waves
of guilt it is because they know their relationship is in jeopardy and may
crumble. Ignoring the guilt will make a person ignore the entire problem.
And then they will get caught and the relationship will dissolve, or worse!
People have been known to kill someone for cheating. So people could really
get hurt if no guilt is felt. Guilt only exists in the presence of a deep
feeling of responsibility. If one has no feelings of responsibility, he may
then act totally irresponisibly towards others, causing a "positive
feedback" scenario to occur, fomenting a crisis. And Biologically speaking,
we are trying to avoid crisises. They aren't good. Avoid guilt by acting
responsibly. But if you feel guilt, pin-point where your responsibility lies
and act upon it to release the pressure or trouble may ensue.
> Perhaps we are thinking of guilt as
> two different things?
Maybe. Actually I think we just are seeing the same thing two different
ways. You see it as something to rid oneself of. I see it as a natural
emotion for people who are socially cognizant. It can be obsessed on, but so
can bubble-gum cards. I don't think obsession is ever good. But guilt can be
a definite sign of impending crisis. It should not be cultivated. But then
again, it should never be ignored.
>
> > Guilt is built-in to most people.
>
> Enculturated, or do you believe it to be natures curse?
Again, it is a natural "built-in" warning sign in normal psychologies that
warns that one has breached certain lines of responsibility and personal or
social propriety. It means that if someone else finds out, it could mean the
end of something important.
Say one cheats in school. One gets away with it, and does it again, but
nearly gets caught. A sense of guilt overcomes them. It is there to tell
them that they are treading a very thin line and once it is crossed it will
put them in a social sphere they may never get out of, being a Cheater.
People will never take them seriously again. Their records at school could
be besmirched or ruined. Thousands of dollars spent by their family or
themselves might be basically flushed down the drain! The guilt is there for
a reason. There is one way to deal with it. Stop cheating, forever and be
true to one's own ethics. This gives a person a notable appearance (an
inward "spiritual" one) to others. A person with ethics is respected and
relied upon. A Cheater will never be relied upon or trusted. This can
actually ruin a life! People have been known to kill themselves over it. So
the guilt is a purely resonating emotion that warns us that we should not
cross our own inner boundaries.
Yes some people like to prey on other's sense of guilt. And some people
become overly guilty, hyper-responsible. (A problem I have. I tend to take
too much responsibility for others problems and troubles. It's called
"hyper-vigillance." And it happens to those of us who had too much
responisbility forced uponus as children.) But that happens because guilt is
a pre-existing feeling to begin with. In some it might need to be culturally
"drawn out." Like telling a child "How would you feel if I held you by your
ears and spun you around the room like you just did to the dog!?" Guilt
isn't "instilled." It is simply made to resonate. But I believe it exists in
most naturally normal human beings, or no one could prey upon it or abuse
it.
> > And most of
> > psychology deals with it on a series of very difficult levels.
>
> Which I take as proof of his harmful nature.
I believe the harm comes from #1. Preying on other's sense of guilt and
#2.Obsessing about things and feeling guilty about things that one should
have no guilt about.
Neurosis is simple. It is smoke and mirrors. One obsesses with things or
fears things that have little or nothing to do with the REAL thing they fear
or are guilty over. A woman who was raped by her father years before, might
suddenly find herself unable to move her legs. Hysterical paralysis. Why? No
one can say. She might feel she was secretly injured or has a disease of
"the nerves." A doctor might think she is trying to get attention...and she
is! But for something deep and insidiously harmful, a sense of guilt and
shame that she should not be burdened with.
Essentially her true secret injury is the rape, which she forgot about,
stuffed and thinks she feels nothing about! But the psychological drama
unfolds elsewhere, in the legs. This is what Freud discovered. And though I
am not a Freudian, it still is a very apt diagnosis. Guilt creates disease
if not uncovered and dealt with.
> BTW congrats on your 3.75. I graduate in june (after 2yrs), and I know how
nerve
> racking maintaining a good average can be. I also believe that it is worth
it...
> on many levels.
Thank you. I am doing my best. Congratulations on your graduation. Go forth
and do good.
Saint
angelicusrex
They shouldn't be placed on submarines.
Any other pithy philosophical conundrums you would like me to unravel for
you? If not, don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out of
my office.
Putz.
Saint
Top Postin' Fool!
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:Fkcja.34752$JI.92...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Baruch
Good Lord split you)...news:b6ldq9$6hfb1$1...@ID-168098.news.dfncis.de...
> Yes,
>
> They shouldn't be placed on submarines.
>
> Any other pithy philosophical conundrums you would like me to unravel for
> you? If not, don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out
of
> my office.
>
> Putz.
>
Baruch
have some sort of religion about it...
"David H. Ellison" <loo...@myseeing.com> wrote in message
news:3E8DE213...@myseeing.com...
Baruch
nothing). But I still feel it's a good idea, psychologically, to
acknowledge when we've needlessly hurt someone, and to apologize to *them*
and to make whatever amends are possible.
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
news:6a30440cde73d3c0...@news.teranews.com...
> On 3 Apr 2003 14:28:57 -0800, angel...@mail.com (angel), Message ID:
> <ff066f10.03040...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> >david asman <das...@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3E8C410F...@wayne.edu>...
> ><snip>
> >
> >> I'm curious about what I should be apologizing for?
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> >
> >Doing things that hurt people unnecessarily. First you apologize to
> >them. Then you apologize to God. Pretty simple, really. If you
> >absolutely won't consider talking to God, then it suffices to make
> >amends to the people you've hurt.
>
> What's there to talk 'to' (god), much less apologize to?
>
> Keep in mind that according to the xtian superstition we are all actors
> hitting our marks and spouting our lines in a pointless play scripted
> eons ago.
>
We are such stuff that dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded
with a sleep.
Kermit
> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> >> The land belongs to God, and He gives it to whom HE wills.
>
> > That really isn't going to cut any ice with us atheists.
>
> That's too bad. You atheists are bound for eternal damnation anyway, unless
> you repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Saviour.
No we aren't. You, however, seem bound to spend your only life
wallowing in self-deception. You've wasted half of it already, free
your self, and grow old in reason and liberation!
Actually, you'll find your life is much like before, only you won't
talk so much nonsense.
--- Kermit
John Baker
> Yes,
>
> They shouldn't be placed on submarines.
>
> Any other pithy philosophical conundrums you would like me to unravel for
> you? If not, don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out
of
> my office.
Excuse me, shit-for-brains, but you're the piece of shit crossposting troll
here. And I didn't top post.
<PLONK!>
David H. Ellison
To me, [personal] Guilt is the self blame game looped infinitely back on our
lives, we replay it over and over again. It is never solved, or resolved,
instead people throw drugs, alcohol, and depression at it. In the face of any
evidence to the contrary, it is always believed.
I do not see guilt as synonymous with remorse, or regret, nor do I imagine them
as interchangeable.
I see guilt as lacking understanding; no matter how often it is looked at, it
remains the prison someone has built around themselves. Remorse, or regret might
allow a certain level of introspection, understanding, and therefore some hope
of future peace of mind.
Let's leave the whole discussion of grace and redemption, for another day, shall
we?
For our discussion, however, it might have been enough to differentiate between
Guilt and Chronic Guilt, neh?
BTW I meant Heisenberg, as in Warner Karl and the Heisenberg Principle of
Uncertainty. LOL guess it isn't as clever when you mispell the name?
David H. Ellison
angelicusrex
> Hmmmm had a few thoughts after reading your post (no need to duck and
cover);
That's a funny line in this day of duct-tape anti-bioweapon technology! I
spent the first thirty years of my life being afraid of "the second sun"
rising over L.A. as nuclear devastation made life all the more unpleasant.
Now I have to sit in a widowless room and seal myself in, just in case Osama
or Sadaam sends a biohazard my way! LOL! As in the old days, I think if I
get the alert. I'll just stand outside and breathe deep the freshening
breeze. (This has nothing to do with your post, really, just a
digression...)
>
> To me, [personal] Guilt is the self blame game looped infinitely back on
our
> lives, we replay it over and over again. It is never solved, or resolved,
I believe it can be solved and resolved by facing it head on and feeling the
feelings which caused the guilt. But this is a matter of choice. And it is a
psychological process most people do not want to go through.
> instead people throw drugs, alcohol, and depression at it. In the face of
any
> evidence to the contrary, it is always believed.
True. No one wants the old memories bothering them, so they tend to get
stoned or drunk...but then, as typically happens with neurotics, they "act
out" their guilt feelings, usually by placing blame and guilt on others, or
proceeding to violence or hostility, the minute their inhibitions are
lowered by the drugs or alcohol. Which is why we say: "Man, that guy has
some issues!"
>
> I do not see guilt as synonymous with remorse, or regret, nor do I imagine
them
> as interchangeable.
I think remorse and regret are a little more "finely tuned" emotional
instruments. Remorse occurs when one accepts guilt over having done
something wrong. It is good for the healing process, as long as one doesn;t
become overly, obsessively penitent. Like St. jerome bashing himself with a
rock, or penitentes in the Southwest nailing themselves to crosses (They do
this in the Phillipines as well.)
Regret is less to do with guilt, more to do with a feeling that something
could have been done more properly or in a different way in order to have
had a better outcome. It may not really alwas deal with guilt as such.
Although a person might regret not having "done more" to save a
relationship. They also might regret not "buying that Porsche" when he had a
chance. Of course regret always makes me think of Don Juan in Castaneda's
book, who claimed "No warrior should ever regret any act he performs."
because each act is in and of itself sublime and not to be questioned. But
most people aren't "warriors." Or shamans.
>
> I see guilt as lacking understanding; no matter how often it is looked at,
it
> remains the prison someone has built around themselves. Remorse, or regret
might
> allow a certain level of introspection, understanding, and therefore some
hope
> of future peace of mind.
I agree, except insomuch as the guilt acts as a prison if it is not made
conscious and looked at deeply. This often takes the help of...you guessed
it, a psychiatrist or psychotherapist. It can be done on one's own. But it
takes a lot of courage.
>
> Let's leave the whole discussion of grace and redemption, for another day,
shall
> we?
Again, that was a discussion I was having with some other jokers.
>
> For our discussion, however, it might have been enough to differentiate
between
> Guilt and Chronic Guilt, neh?
Or let us further deliniate it by calling it common guilt, vs Chronic Guilt
Syndrome. Wherein basic instinctual guilt grows all out of proportion and
taks over a person's life and causes them to either act-out or become ill.
There are levels of guilt I think, just as there are levels of happiness.
I would not be as happy about seeing my favorite movie, say as I would about
the birth of my child. Although I know some movie nerds who might be way
more ecstatic about the release of the last Lord of the Rings installment
than they would about anything else! LOL!
>
> BTW I meant Heisenberg, as in Warner Karl and the Heisenberg Principle of
> Uncertainty. LOL guess it isn't as clever when you mispell the name?
I'm not sure I understand the Uncertainty Principle as it applies in this
case. Perhaps you could explain to me. I think I've heard of it but only
peripherally.
Saint
angelicusrex
learn? Don't you "get-it?" Haven't you got my point? Aren't you concerned?
Have you no netiquette? Haven't you read the book yet?
Signed, The Saint
Top Posting C*nt.
"Baruch" <bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:b6linf$r77$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
stoney
Message ID: <b6livn$rsd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
Please post under the paragraph(s) you are responding to as it helps the
communication flow.
>That's my point. If there's nothing there, then don't talk to it (the
>nothing). But I still feel it's a good idea, psychologically, to
>acknowledge when we've needlessly hurt someone, and to apologize to *them*
>and to make whatever amends are possible.
No argument about acknowledging and correcting things as best you can.
>"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
>news:6a30440cde73d3c0...@news.teranews.com...
>> On 3 Apr 2003 14:28:57 -0800, angel...@mail.com (angel), Message ID:
>> <ff066f10.03040...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >david asman <das...@wayne.edu> wrote in message
>news:<3E8C410F...@wayne.edu>...
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> I'm curious about what I should be apologizing for?
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >Doing things that hurt people unnecessarily. First you apologize to
>> >them. Then you apologize to God. Pretty simple, really. If you
>> >absolutely won't consider talking to God, then it suffices to make
>> >amends to the people you've hurt.
>>
>> What's there to talk 'to' (god), much less apologize to?
>>
>> Keep in mind that according to the xtian superstition we are all actors
>> hitting our marks and spouting our lines in a pointless play scripted
>> eons ago.
>>
>We are such stuff that dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded
>with a sleep.
>
Stoney
angel
I like to post on top most of the time. If this disturbs you, note my
handles (baruch and angel), and simply don't read my posts. I know
the Netstapo don't like this, but what can I do? I'm Politically
Challenged.
stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message news:<57f23052a7bca9ac...@news.teranews.com>...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:35:58 -0600, "Baruch" <bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>,
> Message ID: <b6livn$rsd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> Please post under the paragraph(s) you are responding to as it helps the
> communication flow.
>
> >That's my point. If there's nothing there, then don't talk to it (the
> >nothing). But I still feel it's a good idea, psychologically, to
> >acknowledge when we've needlessly hurt someone, and to apologize to *them*
> >and to make whatever amends are possible.
>
> No argument about acknowledging and correcting things as best you can.
>
That's all I'm saying. God can handle our insults and thoughtlessness.
If He doesn't exist, then there's no one to be offended. If He does
exist, He's just too big to be troubled by anything we say to Him.
People are more fragile.
David H. Ellison
Ichimusai
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
with your comments and not top post.
rather difficult and best thing is to intersperse the quoted material
to follow several threads with lots of people involved this becomes
Because it screws up the natural reading order and when you are trying
--
AA #769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai AOL: Ichimusai1972 MSN: Ichimusai
IRC: Ichimusai#AmigaSWE@IRCnet URL: http://www.ichimusai.org/
It doesn't matter how good your OS is if your RAID array has caught fire.
-- A propeller head friend of Mark Whickman, alt.atheism
David H. Ellison
in, this should seem to be the bottom of the page for you?
David H. Ellison
Loved your webpage btw.....
Mark K. Bilbo
> Why, do you suffer from some freak sort of dyslexia?
Because that's the way it's been done since before the Usenet was public
and it makes reading posts (particularly those replied to by multiple
people) a great deal easier.
> stoney wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:35:58 -0600, "Baruch" <bar...@NOblessedbSPAM.com>,
>> Message ID: <b6livn$rsd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> Please post under the paragraph(s) you are responding to as it helps the
>> communication flow.
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_________________________________________________________________
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
[Stephen Jay Gould]
angelicusrex
very own little post! Tell the propeller head to get lost. And that his post
made no sense whatsoever. That way, in order for any of these mental midgets
to know what was being said, they have to go back to the original post!
Serves 'em right too!
What really burns my britches is that these twerps never say where they are
posting from, so I can simply post over there specifically. I'm almost
certain no atheists post from alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, but one
never knows! LOL!
And again, being well mannered to a bunch of ill-mannered people is rather a
useless task. Albert Einstein used to read Emily Post for hours and laugh!
In other words, manners matter not at all in cyber space. In cyber-space no
one can hear you scream PLEASE STOP IT!
Saint