[RE: Eros Arts? No Way Jay!]
BonzaiBett
Lu's response to D.J., and I'm sticking my nose in since Mr. Fish is
referenced:
>Mike Fish was not talking away the right of the individual to pursue
>happiness. That right is intrinsic to each one of us and it is based on
>moral and social laws which ultimately rests on scriptural tenets.
While MF was not talking away the right to pursue happiness, he stated
blatantly that homosexuality would only lead to unhappiness. I disagree with
this. Unless MF has personal experience in a homosexual relationship with
which to come to this conclusion, this is merely *his* opinion based on *his*
beliefs. He has the right to express these opinions, but that doesn't mean
that he is right. I happen to believe differently on many levels than MF,
therefore I disagree on this particular point.
<<snipping molecule explanation>>
> most of us are under the illusion
>that we're our bodies and thus we wrongly equate the platform of
>happiness as bodily.
Again, this comes back to how you believe. I may not believe in this same
manner. I may not believe that we are anything other than bodily creatures,
with no spiritual realm even existing. The point is, if I don't believe the
same thing that you do, your words are empty to me.
<<snip, snip>>
>So no one's about to take away your right as long as you maintain
>appreciation of the laws that is giving you that protection. I believe
>Mike's posting was doing that and you may have missed it, because you
>took offense at some of the things he had said and it blinded you. But
>enough.
>
>
And yet, again, this depends on one's personal beliefs. The laws you speak of
vary from person to person depending upon what their personal beliefs are.
Those that believe in God live by different "laws" than those that don't.
Those that are Prostetant live by different "laws" than those that are Catholic
and Jewish and Buddhist, etc. Those that are Baptist live by different "laws",
however subtle, than those that are Methodist or Presbityrian (sp?). I
suppose there are basic laws of human nature, but even then those are effected
by one's spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof.
I happen to believe that I am above all a spiritual being. My body is the
housing for that being. But I think that might be where you and I go our
separate ways in our beliefs and the "laws" that apply to us. I guess my point
to all of this would be that each of us could realize that we do have
different belief systems operating in this NG, and therefore we will have
differing POV's and some long discussions. I would only hope that these
discussions could be carried out in a way that each party involved could gain
some understanding of where the other is coming from. Not in an effort to
change anyone, but in an effort to build tolerance so that we don't have the
name calling and bashing, etc., etc. I am open to learning new things. If you
believe differently than I do, share that belief with me, but don't present it
to me in a manner of "I'm right, you're wrong, you stupid little idiot." And
don't present it to me in the manner of using words like "faggot". At that
point, the person speaking becomes nothing more than a bigot, and I don't have
much respect for someone like that. And yes, I will respond in kind.
Bonzai (living in a dream world of hope)
Sylvia L Green
On 18 Jan 1998 17:23:40 GMT, bonza...@aol.com (BonzaiBett) posted this
Message-ID <19980118172...@ladder01.news.aol.com> in
alt.tv.xena:
The whole matter could be summed up for me in this manner:
"Anyone can be rude, inconsiderate and intolerant. But the mark of
true intelligence is the ability to deliver ones opinion in a manner
which does not incite a riot... or a war."
Sylvia, (living in the same world as Bonzai<g>)
--
Courage is the residue of giving up fear.
Mike Fish
BonzaiBett wrote:
> Lu's response to D.J., and I'm sticking my nose in since Mr. Fish is
> referenced:
>
> >happiness. That right is intrinsic to each one of us and it is based on
> >moral and social laws which ultimately rests on scriptural tenets.
> While MF was not talking away the right to pursue happiness, he stated
> blatantly that homosexuality would only lead to unhappiness. I disagree with
> this. Unless MF has personal experience in a homosexual relationship with
> which to come to this conclusion, this is merely *his* opinion based on *his*
> beliefs. He has the right to express these opinions, but that doesn't mean
> that he is right. I happen to believe differently on many levels than MF,
> therefore I disagree on this particular point.
thought that was a 'given' by now. You're saying that unless I, or for
that matter anyone else presumably, have experienced a homosexual
relationship then we can't say whether or not it leads to happiness.
Firstly, I said that homosexual activity leads ULTIMATELY to
unhappiness, but anyway... the thing, is you're using that stupid,
oft-heard-nowadays proposition, that, "If you haven't done it, don't
knock it!", right?
"If you haven't smoked crack, don't knock it!"
"If you haven't shot smack, don't knock it!"
"If you haven't been a paedophile, don't knock it!
"If you've never pulled an armed hold-up, don't knock it!"
See how stupid this rationale is? I'm not saying *you* are stupid, I'm
saying the rationale is, and I reckon you can see it too... I reckon
you just picked the wrong arrow from your quiver.:)
(Buncha stuff snipped)
> I happen to believe that I am above all a spiritual being. My body is the
> housing for that being.
Yes, I completely agree with you. My experience is exactly the same.
Despite the many divergences in our views, we agree on the most crucial,
fundamental point: our identity. That we are the person being 'housed',
not the 'housing'.
>But I think that might be where you and I go our
>separate ways in our beliefs and the "laws" that apply to us. I guess my point
> to all of this would be that each of us could realize that we do have
> different belief systems operating in this NG, and therefore we will have
> differing POV's and some long discussions. I would only hope that these
> discussions could be carried out in a way that each party involved could gain
> some understanding of where the other is coming from. Not in an effort to
> change anyone, but in an effort to build tolerance so that we don't have the
> name calling and bashing, etc., etc. I am open to learning new things. If you
> believe differently than I do, share that belief with me, but don't present it
> to me in a manner of "I'm right, you're wrong, you stupid little idiot." And
> don't present it to me in the manner of using words like "faggot". At that
> point, the person speaking becomes nothing more than a bigot, and I don't have
> much respect for someone like that. And yes, I will respond in kind.
We may be going our separate ways for now, Bonzai, but I've got to tell
you this on a more personal note, which may or may not interest you...
For some reason - and I know I'm not alone in this - I've never actually
been very interested in 'beliefs' or a 'belief system'. I tend to want
to know the truth about things, even if I don't like it - and I
frequently haven't, at first :) - I've never wanted simply 'something to
believe in'. 'Beliefs' can change - they're fickle by their very nature
- but 'core' truths, if you like, are eternal and unchanging and are
therefore solid.
I'm not saying *you* should see things this way, Bett, I'm just sharing
this with you so you'll understand if I don't always show a lot of
interest in 'beliefs' or place much value on 'discussions' about them,
because, really, they're neither here nor there. I mean, I'm not
bothered at all by our disagreeing strongly or even profanely; I don't
go into a spin if I'm called a bigot or a Xenaphobe or any such thing. I
guess, what I'm trying to say is that I hear what you're saying about
how you like things to proceed at ATX, but I can't guarantee to always
oblige you. I'll continue to use words like 'faggot' or whatever from
to time to time as I feel the situation requires. Please be tolerant of
me...
> Bonzai (living in a dream world of hope)
There's no *real* hope in a dream world, BonzaiBett...
Best regards,
Mike Fish
David Johnston
Lubowj Hladyszewski wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Eros Arts? No Way Jay!
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:40:16 +1300
> From: Lubowj Hladyszewski <lub...@seisha.com.au>
> Reply-To: lub...@seisha.com.au
> Organization: DemoOne Plus
> To: "D.J." <JQPu...@DeathsDoor.com>
> References: <34B30A...@fan.net.au> <68vcfs$16...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> <88493317...@dejanews.com>
<69pfk3$2...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>
>
> D.J. wrote:
>
> > That is a nearsighted way of looking at it. I believe a person is
> > capable of
> > pursuing their own happiness for spiritual joy, as well as mental and
> > physical
> > happiness. In any case, the main point is not *why* a person is
> > pursuing
> > happiness, but that they _be_allowed_ to do so, in any way that they
> > choose!!
> >
>
> Yes, I'm sorry and I apologise to you and to all for delivering a
> *muddled* paragraph in my previous post. Please forgive me I beg of you
> <grovel> <on both knees> <now with folded hands>. I'll make amends and
> promise not to behave in a *befuddled* manner again.
>
> Mike Fish was not talking away the right of the individual to pursue
> happiness. That right is intrinsic to each one of us and it is based on
Almost none of them do, you know. Social laws are generally the
result of people making them up as they note that something has
become socially disruptive in general, or at least inconvenient
for the ruling classes. Otherwise non-Christian cultures...or
at least non-literate cultures would have no morals or laws, which
is hardly the case.
> too have no real religious affiliations as such, but I accept that
> without the presence in society of those scriptural injuctions, you and
> I probably wouldn't be enjoying the freedom to express ourselves openly
That's fairly improbable, actually, apart from the minimal strictures
against killing and stealing that every semi-stable civilisation had.
> as we do now. Since scripture is said to be the word of God it would
> not be wrong to say that He has given you the freedom to do as you so
> wish. In whatever manner I act it is only possible because I am
> protected by one or more of these laws. Lets get that out of the way.
Yes, but occasionally one may have to decide that that one
or more of those laws is outdated, to go wild and
say, "Yes! I will eat pork, or wear a cotton polyester blend,
or stop killing 'witches', or let a woman speak in church."
Every once in a while one should stop and consider if there
was ever a reason for a rule, and whether that reason still
applies.
> > >> >a BIG 'but' - I don't hate the enemy! Also - most importantly -
> > I'm not
> > >> >against homosexual behaviour "...because it is against the
> > "norm"..."
> > >> >I'm against it because it is an extreme form of self-centred
> > hedonistic
> > >> >behaviour, behaviour that will prevent the person who indulges in
> > it
> > >> >from ever becoming truly satisfied within themselves as long as
> > they
> > >> >continue to practice it.
Studies of those who cease to practise "it", indicate that they
still aren't "truly satisfied within themselves". Go fig. Could it
be that even if you don't do "it", you will still be disturbed
by the knowledge that you still want to do "it"? Or perhaps that
being denied a mate simply leaves some people lonely?
> Mmm.. So he can't say what he said? Or he shouldn't say it in a public
> forum? Or he shouldn't say it in a public forum while you're there?
<Shrug> If you say something I don't like, I may not have the right
(or the power) to stop you from saying it, but I certainly have the
right to say I don't like what you said. Of such things are discussion
groups made.
>
> rather it is a possesion of your's as is your body. It's an established
> scientific fact that not one single atom in your body is over 8years
> old. In fact the total molecular contingency of the human brain
On the contrary. It's highly improbable that that every atom in
the body is entirely recycled over that time frame, except in the
a sort of statistical sense. But assuming that it was true,
what does that have to do with anything?
changes
> every 4 days. Some cells remain almost a lifetime but the molecules
> making up the cellular structure are constantly changing. You have
> memory of events in your life going back further than 8yrs. You were
> there on your 6th birthday party but you have a whole different body on
> then. Look at the one you have now. Probably much larger with more
> hairs in some parts and less in others.
>
> It's a lengthy subject suffice to say, most of us are under the illusion
> that we're our bodies and thus we wrongly equate the platform of
> happiness as bodily. In other words if I think I am my body then I will
> conclude that the goal is to satify the needs of my body and my mind,
Those who do not satisfy the needs of their bodies and minds will
soon find that they have neither.
> which the senses are grouped around. While I misindentify in this way my
> whole outlook towards life, others, universe, God, Truth, homosexuality,
> self-esteem, X:WP, marriage, sex etc. will be coloured by it. My
> conclusions will simply be erroneous because of this fundamental flaw in
> my premise.
That we eat and excrete does not in itself prove that our bodies
are not us. I prefer to reserve judgement.
Rayv8
Mike Fish wrote:
snipped a lot of stuff
> ...... I'll continue to use words like 'faggot' or whatever from
> to time to time as I feel the situation requires. Please be tolerant
>
>
> Best regards,
> Mike Fish
Not in this lifetime!!!
Reamonn
Tim Smith
Rayv8 wrote in message <34C551...@mail.webspan.net>...
(Sorry, I can't resists the temptation to respond to mike....)
Sure, he can use the word 'faggot' all he wants to.
Just remember, if he ever stops using the word, it doesn't mean he will
suddenly be able to walk on just his hind legs.
But I do agree with Mike, be tolerant.... It makes the clown act a lot more
fun. <g>
---
Tim Smith
'Sticks and stones may break my bones,'
'but a BFG1000 will turn me into an impressionist painting.'