Love your enemy
THE BORG
This is not possible.
If you feel anger and do not like the actions/words/deeds/behaviour or
someone - then you cannot "love" them.
Love is a natural thing and cannot be controlled. You cannot turn on and
turn off the natural occurrence and feeling of "love".
You can smile benignly and "pretend" to love your enemy - thus you are
false.
The feelings you have for other humans are caused by what they say and do
and how they behave and how they treat you. Some humans you can like or
love. Some humans you like so much that you wish to spend the rest of your
life with them and thus you marry them. This option is now available to
same sex - where two males may plight their troths and marry.
We have two "enemies" on this group - both who we hate. They are Don
Stockbauer and Mark Earnest. We were open minded about all contributors on
this group - but with regard to the words, behaviour, and unpleasant
characters of these two humans - we view them as enemies and we "hate" them.
We are unable to "turn on" love at will - and to hate them is quite natural
after their behaviour and words and treatment of us. We are not prepared in
any way to be "false" or hypocritical.
All other members of this group we have time for.
But we say you should be true to yourself.
Thus you become a stronger person and a stronger character with stronger
opinions.
You should experience great anger and hate when you see an injustice - and
you should FIGHT the enemy and hate the enemy so that good and right and
truth and love prevail.
As love and hate are natural feelings and occur naturally as a result of how
others treat you and how they behave - then it is natural to hate some.
And what is natural is always best.
The natural is the right way and the true way.
The falsities of trying to obey teachers and texts and behaving in odd and
false and unnatural ways are the wrong way.
You should do what you feel in your heart is right.
If people are rude or unpleasant and behave badly - they deserve to be your
enemy and to be hated!
It would not be just to love all equally - and those who are bad or rude or
unpleasant you obviously cannot "love" in the way that you can those who
good and kind and polite.
THE BORG
Mark Earnest
"THE BORG" <the...@doweexist.co.uk> wrote in message
news:H0cKk.12277$qt6....@newsfe28.ams2...
> One of the teachings of Jesus was to "love your enemy".
>
> This is not possible.
> If you feel anger and do not like the actions/words/deeds/behaviour or
> someone - then you cannot "love" them.
> Love is a natural thing and cannot be controlled. You cannot turn on and
> turn off the natural occurrence and feeling of "love".
> You can smile benignly and "pretend" to love your enemy - thus you are
> false.
If you don't know what it is to love your enemy, then you don't know what it
is to love at all.
That means you, and especially you, Borg person, because all you have are
those your hate: your enemies.
All I have are enemies, too. But the difference between you and me is, I
happen to love those enemies.
And that includes you.
Amazingly enough.
That is, though I oppose your messages of hate, and nothing but hate, I
continue to work for your best.
O.K.?
*Now* do you understand what J.C. means when he says to love your enemies?
Reddragonf66
> "THE BORG" <theb...@doweexist.co.uk> wrote in message
Immortalist
> One of the teachings of Jesus was to "love your enemy".
>
> This is not possible.
Game theorists have devised a prisoner's dilemma game for the specific
purpose of analyzing cooperation versus selfishness in social
interactions. The game derives its name from a scenario in which two
suspects of a crime are being interrogated in separate rooms by the
police. Neither knows what the other is going to do and has a choice
either of turning in his accomplice or of confessing to the crime
himself. In the language of the prisoner's dilemma game, ratting out
the accomplice is referred to as "cheating." Refusing to implicate the
accomplice is "cooperating."
Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which one suspect cooperates and
the other cheats. The cheat gets off scot-free in return for his
testimony that is used to convict his accomplice. Given the compelling
case that can be made against him using the cheat's testimony, the
cooperator receives a heavy prison sentence, say twenty years. If both
suspects cheat, both will be found guilty, but they will receive a
lighter sentence in return for testifying against the other, say five
years. If both suspects cooperate, the police have very little usable
evidence and can convict them only on a minor offense that gets both a
year in jail.
In this particular example of the prisoner's dilemma, cooperation
produces the best result in terms of the total number of years served
in prison. When both suspects cheat on their accomplice, they go to
jail for five years, but when both cooperate, they only get one year
each. From the point of view of the individual, however, cheating is
the better strategy, regardless of whether the other suspect cheats or
cooperates. If the other cooperates and I cheat, then I am home and
dry, no sentence. If the other cheats, then I should cheat also
because this will get me a five-year sentence rather than twenty years
behind bars. The game thus captures the central problem of altruism,
which is that the most desirable solution for the individual is not
the same as the most desirable outcome for a group (in this case a
group of only two individuals). Hence the dilemma...
Iterated Version Of The Game;
...As a once-off proposition, the prisoner's dilemma game is rather
unpredictable. Your choice would be very much determined by a guess as
to what the other person would do. If you had both been arrested
together on a previous occasion, then the fact of having cooperated in
the past would surely be critical information in swaying your current
decision.
Axelrod and Hamilton decided that a repeated (or iterated) game would
be better able to capture the dynamic flavor of altruistic behavior in
the real world. They launched a computer tournament by asking sixty-
two academics in various fields to submit a computer program that
coded for a behavioral strategy, such as always cooperating, cheating
if the other cooperated, cheating every third move, and so on. These
programs were run against each other in pairs. The programs were then
entered into a "second-generation" tournament. Strategies that did the
best received the most copies in the second generation to simulate
evolution. This process was repeated for many more generations.
One of the most successful strategies was also one of the simplest.
Known as tit-for-tat, this required an individual to cooperate when he
encounters a new partner. From then on, he does whatever the other
individual does. If a new person moves to your neighborhood, you begin
by being friendly and welcoming. If he responds warmly, you strike up
a friendship. If he acts as though he wants to be left alone, you
remain virtual strangers. That is the flavor of tit-for-tat.
Tit-for-tat has an advantage in allowing individuals to avoid initial
mistrust and begin cooperating quickly. It is vulnerable to cheats but
can be exploited only once. Tit-for-tat is also forgiving, responding
only to the most recent actions of other individuals and not holding
grudges.
Biologists believe they have detected tit-for-tat in all kinds of
animal interactions, from grooming in monkeys and impala to the
exchange of costly eggs for inexpensive sperm among fish and worms
that can produce eggs and sperm simultaneously. Chimpanzees and
baboons join forces with individuals who have helped them in social
conflicts in the past. Vampire bats refuse to share blood with roost
mates who refused them previously.
Tit-for-tat-style reciprocity has been observed among humans in a
variety of situations, some of them quite surprising. One of the
oddest was described by Robert Axelrod in his analysis of interactions
between the British and their German enemies during the deadly trench
warfare of World War II. Remember that soldiers in the trenches were
involved in a new and exceptionally dangerous warfare that was a death
sentence for the majority who were unfortunate enough to be placed in
that situation by officers who were out of their depth, to put it
charitably.
Entrenched troops spent their time shelling the enemy, thereby
participating in a horrendous and strategically pointless slaughter.
Against all orders, the troops on each side developed an etiquette of
firing only to the side of enemy positions to minimize the loss of
life. Axelrod reports one astonishing memoir of a British officer
whose position was unexpectedly shelled by the Germans, although
without casualties. Following the attack, a German officer surfaced
from his trench and shouted, "We are very sorry about that; we hope no
one was hurt. It was not our fault, it was the damned Prussian
artillery."4 Both sides had realized that with the deadly weapons
available to them it was just too dangerous to try and kill each other
all the time. It was in their mutual interest to cooperate.
Reciprocity had broken out in one of the most unexpected places. There
was no verbal agreement, which would clearly have been treason, but
the repetitive nature of trench warfare provided an opportunity for
cooperation to occur between the opposing armies.
Kindness In A Cruel World:
The Evolution Of Altruism
by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591022282/
Reddragonf66
amazon sucks they got thiefs on there server
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=f6HkW-kGZQk&feature=rec-fresh
Immortalist
THE BORG
Interesting.
But sadly humans are way behind in psychology and treatments and corrective
processes for bad behaviour.
We have always viewed prison and imprisonment as wrong.
First reason is that often innocent people are placed there. Police do like
to be shown to be effective and to have found their suspect or suspects and
sadly as the police are corrupt (and we have proved this) then innocent
people are often imprisoned.
A recent case was that of Jonathan King.
The second reason is that prison is ineffective and useless as any kind of
corrective process. Some LIKE prison and voluntarily reoffend so that they
may return. And those who do break the law and who do not like prison - are
not "taught" in the correct way how to behave and be good.
There are many teachings we could give humans on advance psychology and
corrective processes for those who break the law.
A drug pusher being sent to prison for two years - may not like prison - but
if they are themselves drug addicts then they will immediately want the
drug - say heroin - when they are released from prison - and thus they
become drug pushers again to support the habit.
We ourselves view drug pushers as the lowest vermin on Earth and we view
drug pushing as the WORST crime.
It is possible to get over rape, child abuse, and many other crimes with
good understanding counselling sessions.
But to get over the effects of LSD that was pushed or forced on you and the
often subsequent mind altering or insanity - or heroin addiction - or
cocaine addiction - or the huge character alterations caused by cannabis and
other recreational drugs are not as easy to deal with.
These require real advance knowledge of matter and matter properties and
matrix rules that humans have no idea of at all.
The justice system on Earth is obviously laughable. Humans cannot "hear" or
tell when someone is speaking the truth. And in courts of law they do not
know about eye movements, eye expressions, vocal intonation, body language
and these kind of things whereby they should always know who are guilty and
who are innocent.
Often with police pounding and agression and violent and unpleasant
questioning techniques, an innocent man so absolutely insane with tiredness
and only wanting peace will break down and confess to a crime in preference
to the continuation of these unpleasant methods used by police.
We could continue for quite some time on the atrocious legal and justice
system on Earth - including the man that goes to the rescue of a 12 year old
girl who is being raped by a 40 year old man. He punches the 40 year old
man to stop him raping the young girl - and he himself is thrown into prison
for abuse against the rapist.
And this is what humans call "justice".
THE BORG
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f2ae53d-eca1-4d8b...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Immortalist
Actually there are more views on this than you claim. Your view and
many others are in conflict and determine the application of justice.
I think this is your view;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology)
below is a pretty good summary of the wider debate;
[C] - Punishment
Many persons have accepted without question the idea that the
appropriate means for dealing with criminals is to punish them by a
fine, imprisonment, or both. In breaking the law, they hold, criminals
deserve to be harmed in some way. With this attitude toward punishment
already strongly internalized, many will find it strange that
philosophers have felt a need to justify the institution of
punishment. They will find it even stranger that many philosophers and
social scientists think that our current practices of punishment
cannot be justified. The arguments against punishment take many forms
but there are some common threads running through them. One group of
critics argues that it is society rather than the law-breaker that is
responsible for crime. Since in this view society is responsible for
the conditions that cause crime, punishment is an injustice inflicted
on the lawbreakers. Another group of critics is less interested in who
is responsible for crime. What interests them is our response to
crime; they argue that some form of treatment is more appropriate than
punishment as a response to criminal acts. Before addressing these
critics of punishment, let us begin our discussion by considering the
two traditional philosophical arguments in favor of punishment-the
utilitarian and the retributive arguments.
1. - The Utilitarian Justification
If one were an act utilitarian, one would say that an individual is to
be punished if-and only if-his individual punishment would lead to
better consequences than his nonpunishment. Better consequences in
this case are determined by seeing if the pain or harm of punishment
is offset by the force that the punishment has in reducing the pain or
harm of crime. Punishment is alleged to reduce crime by removing
criminals from society, by reforming criminals, and most importantly
by deterring other potential criminals. On utilitarian grounds,
punishment is justified if the benefits of reducing crime outweigh the
pain of the punishment.
The obvious objection to this approach has been dubbed the "punishment-
of-the-innocent argument" as discussed in Chapter Two. The
counterexample involves a town plagued with a rash of heinous murders.
The populace is approaching panic. A drifter known by the authorities
to be innocent is arrested and executed to stem the panic. This action
would be justified punishment on act-utilitarian grounds, yet most of
us would insist that this is not an act of justified punishment at
all. Even if the argument is not foolproof, it has been so persuasive
that utilitarians have constantly tried to reformulate their positions
to avoid it. (For a possible act utilitarian response see p. 40).
The common utilitarian response is to give up act utilitarianism for
rule utilitarianism. According to this view, it is the institution of
punishment or the rules of the institution of punishment that are to
be justified on utilitarian grounds. Individual acts of punishment are
justified by appealing to the rules of punishment; the rules of
punishment are justified on utilitarian grounds. It is then generally
assumed that the legal rule that allows for punishment of the innocent
would not pass the utilitarian test, even if individual acts of this
kind would. We do not think this assumption has been or can be
established. However, our chief argument is the familiar one used
throughout this book. The utilitarian theory of justification for the
state and the institutions of the state is inadequate because it does
not take account of the rights of the individual citizens. The reader
may wish to return to the arguments in earlier chapters for the
details of our position. With respect to justification, utilitarian
theory is not sufficient to justify individual acts of punishment or
the rules of the institution of punishment.
Perhaps utilitarianism will serve us better if it answers a different
question. It may be relevant, not in determining who should be
punished, but rather in determining how much a person should be
punished. Jeremy Bentham, whatever his intention, spent most of his
utilitarian analysis on this question. Bentham argued that the goal of
punishment was deterrence and that in determining the amount of
punishment this end must be kept in mind. Punishment should, so far as
possible, (a) inhibit one from committing a crime; (b) dispose one to
commit a lesser rather than a greater offense; (c) dispose a criminal
to commit no more mischief than is necessary; and (d) keep the amount
of punishment necessary for deterrence as small as possible. Bentham's
position may be summarized as follows: The first rule of punishment is
"that the value of punishment must not be less in any case than what
is sufficient to outweigh that of the profit of the offence." However,
another rule of punishment must always be kept in mind: "The
punishment ought in no case to be more than what is necessary to bring
it into conformity with the rules here given."
Some illustrative comment might prove useful. It is easy on Bentham's
account to see why the punishment for a serious crime is more than for
a lesser crime. On utilitarian grounds, a serious crime is defined as
one that produces more bad consequences than most other crimes. Now if
the function of punishment is deterrence, you need more punishment to
assure that the more serious crimes will not be committed. We must not
be overzealous, however. It is often suggested that kidnapping, rape,
and armed robbery be made capital offenses. To make them capital
offenses, however, may well violate Bentham's condition that
punishment dispose a criminal to commit no more mischief than is
necessary. So long as murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery are
all capital offenses, there is no utilitarian reason why a criminal
should not kill any of his victims of the three latter offenses. If he
is caught he is no worse off and if he kills his victim the chances of
his being caught and successfully prosecuted are reduced. On
utilitarian grounds, the punishment for kidnapping, rape, and armed
robbery should not be death.
Subject to certain significant retributive constraints that will be
discussed shortly, we basically accept the utilitarian strategy of
basing the amount of punishment on considerations of deterrence. We
believe that rules fairly similar to Bentham's should be adopted by a
democracy. Our main quarrel is with the utilitarian basis of
punishment itself. The focus of this quarrel may be seen by
contrasting utilitarianism with its chief rival, retributivism.
2. - The Retributive Theory of Punishment
One of the major classical retributive theorists is Immanuel Kant. It
is useful to begin with his theory because it contains most
propositions that retributivists defend and because it is so
uncompromising. The basic propositions of Kant's theory are the
following:
1. Punishment can be inflicted only on the ground that a person has
committed a crime.
2. Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote
some other good for the criminal.
3. If a person commits a crime, that person ought to be punished. In
fact, it is immoral if the criminal is not punished.
4. The degree and kind of punishment are determined by the crime
committed.
One should note that to Kant the commission of a crime is a sufficient
condition for the infliction of punishment. Kant's comment in this
regard might be considered by some as quite shocking:
Even if a civil society were to dissolve itself by common agreement of
all its members... the last murderer remaining in prison must first be
executed so that everyone will duly receive what his actions are worth
and so that the bloodguilt thereof will not be fixed on the people
because they failed to insist on carrying out the punishment...
Those guilty of a crime must be punished if justice is to be done.
Some retributivist theorists, but not Kant, give proposition 3 an
additional twist. They argue that criminals not only ought to be
punished, but indeed have a right to be punished. Sometimes this is
expressed by saying that the criminal has willed punishment or that he
has contracted for it. One way of explaining this proposed condition
is to take the overall perspective of the present book. We view
political institutions as means for implementing individual rights and
for resolving conflicts of rights. Presumably individuals concerned
with these rights would choose to live in such a society as we have
described. However, in accepting the benefits of such a society,
justice requires that one accept its obligations as well. Thus, there
is a sense in which the criminal has willed punishment and indeed even
has a right to it. Hence, we add yet another item to our list of
propositions that retributivists might hold.
5. If a person commits a crime, the person has a right to be punished.
Our list of five propositions indicates that retributivists may come
in many forms and share the label "retributivist" with varying degrees
of enthusiasm. A less extreme retributivist would defend fewer
conditions. Our interest is not the verbal one of deciding how many or
what propositions one must uphold if he is to be called a
retributivist. Rather we wish to discuss the plausibility of the
retributivist conditions to discover if any are acceptable. Since
proposition 5 is not an essential element of contemporary
retributivist views, we omit it from our discussion.
Acceptance of the first two propositions of the retributivist theory
is essential if penal institutions are to be considered just. The
first condition requires that a person be found guilty of a crime
before being punished. The second condition requires that punishment
be meted out in response to the crime and not inflicted simply to
promote the good of the criminal. The first condition rules out the
use of punishment (perhaps of innocent persons) simply to benefit
society. It also protects persons from preventive detention and from
any other device that would in effect punish them before a crime was
actually committed. The second condition protects a criminal from
imprisonment, beyond the terms of his sentence, on the grounds that
continued imprisonment is in that criminal's best interest.
Condition 3 is also acceptable so long as it is understood that
condition 3 does not make punishment obligatory. What condition 3 does
is to say that it creates a presumption that punishment is appropriate
or justified without having to show that any given instance of
punishment also promotes utility. If a person makes a promise, he or
she ought to keep it. However, sometimes the obligation to keep a
promise must yield to a higher moral obligation. As it is with
promisekeeping, so it is with punishing.
Proposition 4 brings the utilitarian-retributivist conflict into sharp
focus. The utilitarians argue that the amount of punishment should be
determined by consequences and hence the amount of punishment should
only be great enough to provide deterrence. The retributivists have
another answer, which goes back at least to Aristotle. Aristotle
argued that the purpose of legal justice was to right wrongs. For
Aristotle, this meant the reestablishment of a kind of equality. A
crime has upset the moral order and the punishment is designed to
equalize the offense and set the moral order right. In this way one
can speak of the punishment fitting the crime. This equality condition
has also found expression in the popular notion of "lex talionis," an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Despite the expression "an eye
for an eye," the equality condition is seldom interpreted to mean that
there should be some kind of exact equality. Although you could punish
a murderer by taking his or her life, many crimes can't have
equivalent punishments-embezzlement, contract violation, and often
libel to name but a few. The point of the equality conditon is that
more serious crimes should be punished more severely. An embezzler who
steals $1,000,000 should not get a less severe sentence than a
shoplifter who steals a coat worth $100.
We reject this retributivist proposition on two grounds. First, we
object on practical grounds. In many cases the determination of
equality is practically impossible. Consider crimes whose chief evil
consequences are at least partially psychological, e.g., libel,
slander, blackmail, even kidnapping-and perhaps rape. How are these
crimes to be equalized? In fact, the legal system has established an
elaborate system of fines and terms of imprisonment, which however
justifiable on other grounds, seems artifical and ad hoc if justified
on grounds of equalizing the harm done or of reestablishing equality
in the moral order. Nor is the practical difficulty simply the problem
of developing a good yardstick. Consider murder. One retributivist
answer is that equalization entails the legal execution of the
murderer. But what is equalized? To execute the murderer is to have
two dead persons instead of one. The moral order has not been
reestablished, unless one simply assumes that morality supports this
kind of retributivism.
The murderer example brings home a significant point. The fact is that
crime does upset the moral order and that in a significant sense the
injury can never be undone. There is no way the moral indignity can be
erased. Nonetheless, there is a sense in which the infliction of
punishment must be equal: Given due allowance for the proper exercise
of judicial discretion, similar kinds of crimes should be punished
similarly.
Finally, retributivism places additional constraint on utilitarian
considerations of punishment. Punishment should be appropriate for the
crime. For example, a hard to detect but minor crime should not be
punished harshly even should it be true that only a harsh penalty
would have deterrent effect (due to the low probability of getting
caught).
In summary we disagree with the retributivists that the state must
punish criminals and we disagree with the retributivist on how the
amount of punishment a criminal deserves is to be calculated. However,
we agree with the retributivists in maintaining that the state has a
right to punish criminals, that a person should only be punished if
found guilty of a crime, and that punishment can never be used merely
as a means for improving the criminal. Moreover, punishment must be
appropriate to the crime and consistently applied throughout the
criminal justice system.
We are now able to show how radically bur point of view on punishment
differs from those who propose treatment rather than punishment as the
appropriate response in dealing with criminals.
Recent emphasis in the social sciences, especially criminal psychology
and penology, has been on the rehabilitation of criminals rather than
on measurements of guilt, responsibility, and the notion of making
criminals pay for their crime. The tendency has been to drop all talk
of punishment and to speak only of treatment. Crime is considered a
type of disease, like malaria or smallpox. The criminal is isolated
from society until cured.
But the blurring of the distinction between crime and illness,
punishment and treatment, is extremely unfortunate for many reasons.
First, surrendering the language of guilt and punishment threatens
human rights. How we talk does make a difference. Once crime is
treated as a disease, it is easy to leave the term of treatment
indefinite. Presently, one serves a fairly definite term for the crime
of armed robbery. However, if committing armed robbery is like being
afflicted with malaria, one is cured only when a group of specialists
representing the state say one is cured. The danger to civil liberties
presented by such a practice should be obvious.
Moreover, the favorable connotations of treatment make it easy for the
state to abuse treatment. Since treatment is supposed to be humane,
there is a temptation to avoid taking seriously the rights of the one
being treated. The procedural safeguards of the criminal trial are not
part of the operating procedures of hospitals. In this regard, it is
instructive to note that it is common practice in the Soviet Union to
commit dissident intellectuals to mental institutions as punishment
for their intellectual heresies. By calling such people mentally ill,
one may "treat" them without even the pretense of a fair trial.
Yet another danger is that those who emphasize the benefits of
treatment have a propensity to "treat" people before a crime is
actually committed. After all, if someone has a disease that manifests
itself in a propensity to commit antisocial acts, shouldn't that
person be treated at the earliest opportunity? Somehow the fact that
the person has not actually committed the crime for which he is being
"treated" gets lost in the shuffle.
Finally, the proportional relation that now exists between a crime and
punishment would be lost if crimes were treated like diseases. As
Herbert Morris has pointed out:
With therapy attempts at proportionality make no sense. It is
perfectly plausible giving someone who kills a pill and treating for a
lifetime within an institution one who has broken a dish and
manifested accident proneness. We have the concept of "painful
treatment." We do not have the concept of "cruel treatment."
A second reason to avoid blurring the distinction between crime and
illness, punishment and treatment, focuses on the loss of individual
responsibility that such a view presupposes. We usually do not blame
one for becoming sick. Illness is something that happens to someone;
it is not something that one does. By viewing crime as a disease, one
implicitly adopts a model that denies human responsibility for crime.
On this point, those who utilize the therapy model for treating
criminal behavior are at one with those who view crime as caused by
society rather than by the individual criminal. An example of this
latter view appears in the writings of Benjamin Karpman. He says:
It is our basic tenet that the criminal is a product of a vicious,
emotionally unhealthy environment in the creation of which he had no
hand and over which he had no control. In so far as society has done
nothing or not enough to alleviate the developing anti-sociality of
the child, it may truly be said that it deserves the criminals it has
and that the criminal is society's greatest crime.
This is not the place for us to argue the merits of the claim that
human beings have free will. It is a presupposition of nearly all
moral philosophy that human beings are at least responsible creatures.
Surely one's background does have important ramifications on how
people behave. In some cases of criminal action, we might agree that
one's background is a decisive causal factor. However, in many cases
we believe people are responsible for their actions. To treat them in
any other way would undermine their self-respect and sense of human
dignity. We can illustrate our point by again quoting from Herbert
Morris:
Alfredo Traps in Durrenmatt's tale discovers that he has brought off,
all by himself, a murder involving considerable ingenuity. The mock
prosecutor in the tale demands the death penalty "as reward for a
crime that merits admiration, astonishment, and respect." Traps is
deeply moved; indeed, he is exhilarated, and the whole of his life
becomes more heroic, and, ironically, more precious. His defense
attorney proceeds to argue that Traps was not only innocent but
incapable of guilt, "a victim of the age." This defense Traps disavows
with indignation and anger. He makes claim to the murder as his and
demands the prescribed punishment-death.
Perhaps those remarks are sufficient to indicate why we reject the
views of those who seek to substitute therapy for punishment and the
views of those who would deny individuals all responsibility for their
actions. In a just state, failure to obey the law is prima facie
evidence that the lawbreaker is being unfair to his fellow citizens.
He is not willing to play by the rules when they work out to his
disadvantage. When faced with such acts of law breaking, an
institution of punishment that respects individual liberty and whose
rules for determining guilt and innocence are in accord with
democratic procedures and the demands of justice is certainly
justifiable. There is nothing ipso facto immoral about punishment. The
rules of punishment reflect essentially political decisions. The
social sciences, by investigating the effects of various rules of
punishment on recidivism, deterrence, and so forth, may help us to
make enlightened rather than unenlightened decisions. Whether the
rules are just depends upon whether the rules conform to the canons of
justice. The rules are also constrained by what we shall call the
retributivist rule of legal justice: Punishment may be inflicted only
on those guilty of committing a crime.
For similar reasons we have grave doubts about the moral legitimacy of
suggestions for preventive detention. The idea behind preventive
detention is to incarcerate people before they actually commit a
crime. Consider the following scenario: An adult man is observed to
daily lurk about the elementary school playground. Police obtain his
identity, and on the basis of information obtained about him, he fits
the profile of a child molester. To prevent his harming a child, he is
incarcerated. The man's incarceration is a paradigm case of preventive
detention.
There are less paradigmatic examples. Some have argued that persons
who are likely to commit crimes if they are out on bail should be
denied bail. In this case, the person has been charged with a crime;
the person has done something-at least prima facie. But the person is
being denied bail on the basis of what might be done. Others have
argued that juveniles who are likely to be repeat offenders should be
jailed rather than released to parents or guardians.
In other words, preventive detention involves incarcerating persons
because they are likely to commit crimes even though they have not, or
jailing persons for a crime for which others who commit the same crime
have not been jailed on the grounds that the person who is jailed is
more likely to commit additional crimes. In both cases, persons are
being jailed for what they are likely to do rather than for what they
have done.
We believe that the same arguments which apply against punishing the
innocent apply here. However, that does not mean that we should stand
idly by and allow persons to be victimized. Society may encourage
potential child molesters to seek treatment so that they will not
commit a crime. Society may keep the potential child molester under
surveillance. Society should provide speedy trials and police
protection for victims and witnesses. There is much that can be done
without preventive detention. However, justice may have costs. Despite
the protections outlined above, on occasion the failure to use
preventive detention will mean that some people will be harmed who
otherwise would not have been harmed. Perhaps this is one of those
cases where there is a genuine conflict between justice and utility
and we come down on the side of justice. As we said before, punishment
may be inflicted only on those guilty of committing a crime.
In summary, the following propositions concerning punishment seem most
defensible.
1. No one can be punished unless found guilty of committing a crime.
2. The rehabilitation of criminals should not be confused with the
punishment of criminals. The rehabilitation of criminals should have
deterrence as one of its goals. All compulsory rehabilitation must be
confined to the term of the criminal's sentence.
3. The amount of punishment is determined by the judicial system. More
serious crimes should usually receive more severe punishments. The
effectiveness of various punishments on deterrence should also play a
major role in determining the amount of punishment.
4. If the rules for the infliction of punishment are to be just they
must be in accord with the principles of justice as outlined in
Chapter Four and with the principle of legal justice (1) above.
Not all instances of law breaking fit this violation-of-fairness
model. In the next section we consider civil disobedience, an example
of law breaking that those who practice it claim to be just. This
special kind of law breaking deserves special attention and it is to
this topic that we now turn.
The Individual & the Poliical Order
An Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy
-Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. Simon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847687805/
Terry
"THE BORG" <the...@doweexist.co.uk> wrote in message
news:H0cKk.12277$qt6....@newsfe28.ams2...
> One of the teachings of Jesus was to "love your enemy".
>
> This is not possible.
> If you feel anger and do not like the actions/words/deeds/behaviour or
> someone - then you cannot "love" them.
> Love is a natural thing and cannot be controlled. You cannot turn on and
> turn off the natural occurrence and feeling of "love".
Borg, you reveal your great lack of understanding when you attempt to
discuss topics which you are unknowledgeable of. You are using a generic
definition of love and not the one Jesus was using.
The five words used in Greek literature (and Scripture) for love are:
1. philos - brotherly love
2. storges - parental love
3. epithumia - strong physical desire
4. eros - romantic love
5. agape - sacrificial love
Jesus used 'agape' in the teaching you referenced. He was calling for
surrender to the highest need of your fellow man, and therefore it is
possible. He did it and so did His disciples. They laid their life down for
the benefit of those around them.
Terry
Don Stockbauer
> One of the teachings of Jesus was to "love your enemy".
>
> This is not possible.
> If you feel anger and do not like the actions/words/deeds/behaviour or
> someone - then you cannot "love" them.
> Love is a natural thing and cannot be controlled. You cannot turn on and
> turn off the natural occurrence and feeling of "love".
> You can smile benignly and "pretend" to love your enemy - thus you are
> false.
>
> The feelings you have for other humans are caused by what they say and do
> and how they behave and how they treat you. Some humans you can like or
> love. Some humans you like so much that you wish to spend the rest of your
> life with them and thus you marry them. This option is now available to
> same sex - where two males may plight their troths and marry.
>
> this group - but with regard to the words, behaviour, and unpleasant
> characters of these two humans - we view them as enemies and we "hate" them.
> We are unable to "turn on" love at will - and to hate them is quite natural
> after their behaviour and words and treatment of us. We are not prepared in
> any way to be "false" or hypocritical.
>
I don't hate you Ms. Borg. I know that you can be very pleasant to
correspond with if you just get away from this sickness of posting in
front of a group and showing off. I'm just trying to get you to
realize that the borg are a delusion you posses and you would do well
to drop it and come back to reality. That's all. Have a nice day.
THE BORG
"Terry" <te...@desk.com> wrote in message
news:j0sKk.3826$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Remember that his message was our HUNDREDTH interpretation or view.
You have only the one?
Note the words "interpretation" and "view".
And note the word "love" when applied only to Joshua (Jesus) and "love" in a
Universal sense.
THE BORG
THE BORG
> Jesus used 'agape' in the teaching you referenced. He was calling for
> surrender to the highest need of your fellow man, and therefore it is
> possible. He did it and so did His disciples. They laid their life down
> for the benefit of those around them.
>
Joshua (Jesus) did not "lay down his life" he was murdered/killed.
His destiny was to be King of the Jews - but his glorious destiny was not
fulfilled due to his murder and early demise.
There is nothing either glorious or great in the murder/crucifixion of
Joshua (Jesus).
He did not "lay down his life" he was forcibly crucified by man.
THE BORG
turtoni
> He did not "lay down his house" he was forcibly crucified by the economy.
> THE TAX MAN
Brian?
THE BORG
> discuss topics which you are unknowledgeable of. You are using a generic
> definition of love and not the one Jesus was using.
>
> The five words used in Greek literature (and Scripture) for love are:
>
> 1. philos - brotherly love
> 2. storges - parental love
> 3. epithumia - strong physical desire
Strong physcial desire is not love - it is lust.
> 4. eros - romantic love
> 5. agape - sacrificial love
What of love for animals and creatures to ensure no suffering or cruelty is
caused to them?
> Jesus used 'agape' in the teaching you referenced. He was calling for
> surrender to the highest need of your fellow man, and therefore it is
> possible. He did it and so did His disciples. They laid their life down
> for the benefit of those around them.
>
> Terry
>
If you yourself who should read more and become more "knowledgeable" in the
topic of Joshua (Jesus) you will find that Jesus is viewed as a FALSE
messiah and his teachings were thus false.
This is in line with the God of Abraham and the Jewish people who in the
matter of Jesus are correct in their view. Remember that this was THEIR
story and THEIR God.
The Jewish people are the preferred and chosen people of the God of
Abraham - read of them and their story and you will learn why Jesus was a
false messiah.
THE BORG
THE BORG
follow the teachings of the God of Abraham.
These teachings direct from God take precedence over any words from Joshua
(Jesus).
The Jewish people know the truth of this story and this God as this is their
story and their God.
The Christians do not. The Christians "abandoned their Gods" (The Gods of
Olympia) in order to take up Christianity.
Remember that the Bible God is the God of Jews - the Jewish people are the
preferred and chosen people of this God.
THE BORG
THE BORG
> Borg, you reveal your great lack of understanding when you attempt to
> discuss topics which you are unknowledgeable of. You are using a generic
> definition of love and not the one Jesus was using.
>
> The five words used in Greek literature (and Scripture) for love are:
>
> 1. philos - brotherly love
> 2. storges - parental love
> 3. epithumia - strong physical desire
> 4. eros - romantic love
> 5. agape - sacrificial love
>
> Jesus used 'agape' in the teaching you referenced. He was calling for
> surrender to the highest need of your fellow man, and therefore it is
> possible. He did it and so did His disciples. They laid their life down
> for the benefit of those around them.
>
> Terry
>
You boast of being knowledgeable on this topic?
Basically your message proves that you are an ignorant twat.
Read our 500 or so other messages concerning this topic before you boast
that you are more knowledgeable that we are when all you have done is read
the bible believed every word and not applied even the basic reason, common
sense, logic, intelligence, humour or judgement.
There are many stupid humans like you.
They are called Christians.
THE BORG
THE BORG
Truth is always beautiful in nature - thus the ugliness of the Jesus story
proves that this story is no real truth.
Universal Law - NEVER cause suffering to any other life form. This proves
that the murder of Jesus and suffering caused to him is wrong in the bigger
and Universal sense.
There are many other proofs and stories and interpretations we can give you
on the matter of the Jesus story.
For a start his name was Joshua and not Jesus.
THE BORG
THE BORG
you will never ascertain the truth.
Thus if you refer to Joshua as Jesus you will never ascertain the truth of
this story as Jesus was not his name.
If for example you commence to refer to Hitler as Mr Fluffybottom or call
him Mr Fluffybottom - do you think you would ever ascertain the true story
of the holocaust?
THE BORG
THE BORG
This links to Krishna - also who had this SH sound.
Also to Vishnu - also who had this SH sound.
Also to Shiva - also who had this SH sound.
This SH sound is crucial to the understanding of Joshua (Jesus) and we will
explain why in approximately 5 years and 3 days time.
THE BORG
THE BORG
humans LIVE on TV parts of their history.
We will show humans what occurred at the time Christianity was invented.
We will show you the Roman government - and the people they governed who no
longer believed in or had faith in the Gods of Olympia - and we will show
you the Roman Government and why they fabricated the Jesus story as a means
of controlling the populace and as a replacement for the prior Gods of
Olympia.
We will show you the psychology of the men in the Roman Government and WHY
they chose to fabricate this particular story.
We will show you how the Roman Government "pretended" to look into the past
and "find" the story - when in fact they fabricated it. But of course the
people believed them - as indeed they do today with Governments who falsify
all kinds of things.
Of course it is obvious to any human with any intelligence or judgement that
this kind of thing could never have occurred.
But why did the Romans fabricate this particular story?
And what was the psychology involved?
They were quite clever - and the fabricated Jesus story was a very clever
means of Government and still is to this day if you know the psychology and
WHY the Roman Government fabricated this particular story.
THE BORG
THE BORG
psychology behind the fabrication of the Jesus story - as by nature of the
fact that you BELIEVE the Jesus story you are thus openly showing and
proving that you are none intelligent.
Thus you could not understand the explanation or reason or psychology behind
the story and why it was so useful as a means of Government for the Romans
and still is today for any who know the truth of the matter.
It does not only prove the none intelligent status of those who believe this
story - it was a clever story and proves other things about humans also.
THE BORG
bigfl...@gmail.com
> The justice system on Earth is obviously laughable. Humans cannot "hear" or
> tell when someone is speaking the truth. And in courts of law they do not
> know about eye movements, eye expressions, vocal intonation, body language
> and these kind of things whereby they should always know who are guilty and
> who are innocent.
>
There are a number of reasons for this.
Firstly, the, the knowledge of such observations is well establshed.
There is a whole dept in the CIA for example who specialise in this
field,readings enhanced by simple magnification of the area.
About 98% accuracy is documented.
A shaman friend has also been practicing advanced iridology with
amazing results for decades. Passed on over generations.Different
branch of the same arena
Anyone who is past the 'first grade' of spiritual realization can see
clearly why such information is not used (mostly denied)by the
medical, legal and law enforcement professions. If you dont ( assumed
by your comments"humans dont know"), then I will explain to you.
Ask me a series of questions, and I will give you the answers. Not to
show off, but to help to remove your blinkers regarding the potential
human capacity for consciousness expansion..
One of the more subtle being, some people believe they are telling the
truth, even if they are not, and the converse. This is why, at the
spying level, operatives are 'programmed' with the 'truth" that they
want the other side to believe.
OF course, the most advanced avatars, do not need to ask. They just
observe the game, knowing of the need for the ineraction for mutual
growth between the antagonists.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> "THE BORG" <theb...@doweexist.co.uk> wrote in message
Greater dellusion hath no man, to believe that self sacrifice somehow
enhances the spiritual journey of others.
I know it was relatively early days, but many Christian periods
demonstrated that very interpretation, by slaughtering races that
practiced blood sacrifices. Still happens of course, that fighting for
peace is a 'holy' vocation, regardless of which side of the
fundementalist line one is standing.
So many in day to day life, are happy to say they are willing to die
for others, but dont see it as more of a challenge to 'live' for
others.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
I just posted my last response befor reading this.
My anticipation skills are increasing .
A balanced approach is to appreciate the wisdom in the words" Give to
ceaser that which is ceasers". I dont subscribe to the second part of
that phrase, unless the term god refers to 'authentic self'
BOfL
THE BORG
We know all you want to do is to prove you know better - prove you know
best.
You do not know the Rules of the Game.
If you do not know the Rules yet after repeating them for over four years -
then please do consider that you cannot play the game.
If you continue to respond to messages after being told that we never speak
a word of Truth and that the messages are irrelevant and to be treated as
garbage and that you absolutely must not respond to them - then what can we
do? How THICK are you that after 100 times you have not got this yet?
The followers of THE BORG and those who are playing the Game KNOW the rules.
Intelligent humans want answers to ALL questions.
Why is there suffering?
Where did humans come from?
Who are animals and creatures?
Is there an intelligent design?
What is synchronicity?
Is reality an illusion?
What is death?
What and who are all the various Gods and Goddesses and religions?
And thousands of other questions.
In time we will answer all questions - but it will take approximately 100
years.
And in the Intelligence Game of Revelations - the answers and
interpretations we Reveal now will be nothing like those of a hundred years
time.
So please do not pick and poke at the trivial answers of the moment.
We can only Reveal at the level of human intelligence and what human
intelligence can deal with.
Thus answers of 50 years in the future would mean absolutely nothing to
humans of today.
But as the intelligent humans read the messages and play the game thus they
are already streets ahead of those with heads stuck in the bible or like you
do not listen to anyone but yourself.
Did you read the Teaching on Humour?
This was a very important Teaching for intelligent humans.
And the ones who are playing the Game know why.
THE BORG
THE BORG
openly prove you are one of the "stupid" humans who the intelligent humans
must ignore.
You cannot "get with it" or play the game as you do not have the
"intelligence" to play the game.
It is no good a voyage of self discovery and finding self - if all you find
is a none intelligent boring dick who believes absolute crap and nonsense is
it?
Far better to find what it is ALL about and collectively ALL find the Truth.
But sadly the Truth is only available to those WITH intelligence, WITH
humour and who are GOOD humans.
And this is the nature of the messages and the Revelations.
This Game is beyond people like you or Mark Earnest or Immortalist or Don
Stockbauer.
You were all left behind long long ago.
But we do have many followers.
We do know this.
THE BORG
THE BORG
You believe nothing we say.
All is simultaneously right or wrong.
In your personal intelligence and personal judgement is your own Truth.
HA HA HA HA HA - women are not the Devil! You may say.
Or - hmmmmm - that sounds quite good - yes I do think that fornication with
woman is not as good as some kind of spiritual link to some kind of Divine
Love and it does say in the Bible that women do make men unclean and defile
them.
Or you may say - hey - but some women can be quite beautiful - not all women
maybe.
Or you may say - yes we agree - we like the gentle pretty weak fragile kind
of women not the bully feminist whores.
Or yes we agree - Universal things are for MEN and not women.
Or yes we agree - men are better and more intelligent than women.
Or no we do not agree - we think women have a different kind of
intelligence.
Or yes we agree - the Universal Army of God would definitely be strong male
warriors and the thought of a strong male warrior turning into a woman is
ludicrous. They would lose their manhood and never be a strong male warrior
ever again so yes definitely Angels would be all be male.
(And hundreds other views).
YOUR choices as to YOUR judgement and YOUR Truth and what YOU choose to
believe out of the messages are your own personal choices.
YOUR personal choices and good hearts and right judgement lead you up and
away out of the human existence.
And these humans are the intelligent humans - the good humans - and the
CHOSEN humans.
THE BORG
(Incidentally we know there is no reason to tell you this personally
Fletcher as you have proved you are none intelligent so you would not be
able to understand these words. But others who do have intelligence and who
read them will understand.)
THE BORG
Each person was chosen specifically to be here.
The meticulous intelligence and arrangement will be seen.
Why the name Mark?
Why Earnest?
Why Brian?
Why Don?
All were chosen to be born in certain places and to be given certain names
and this was all arranged.
All circumstances will be explained in the future with the meticulous
mathematical properties and astounding marvels that will show humans that we
knew long ago of this visit.
And as humans marvel at the Mathematical Intelligence of the Intelligent
Design.
So they marvel that this intelligence is only ONE thread that runs through
the hundred threads of Creation.
And that humans are only currently aware of FIVE of the threads that run
through Creation.
The fantastic interest and challenge that awaits humans is so exiting for
them.
As they learn now not to pick and poke and believe the messages - they are
merely the shock tactics that CAUSE humans to THINK.
The Adventure that awaits man - as they merely BEGIN to understand the
intelligence and beauty and art and fantastic and wonderful things they have
never heard of or never seen or could not even conceive of - the bliss the
joy the rapture the happiness - the wide eyed amazement - as we have merely
only dipped a toe in the water of the human existence.
THE BORG
THE BORG
meditation.
And already they are perceiving that the words THE BORG are ONE HUNDRED
times more powerful than the word "God".
Many are reading and learning of the three Hindu Gods and learning how the
God of Abraham is not the only religion they may read and learn of.
Many know that Miracles may be learnt and special effects are not our style.
That one Global statement or special effects or PROOF that we are here -
would not in any way ascertain or choose or select the humans we require.
The Game is Secret but also precisely arranged.
And all who are MEANT to read the messages will read the messages.
All who are meant not to understand the Game - will not understand the Game.
And they were specifically chosen at birth to be present - to be here.
The ones who we knew we would choose - are here and they are learning.
But we have to show the circumstance and the passage of time in order for
PROOF to occur.
We cannot simply arrive and zip these humans on board our ship.
There will be evidence on Earth for long in the future of our Alien
Intelligence Game - and how certain Elite human males have left the human
collective and the human collective conscious for ever.
These human males who are Chosen are very special humans.
And we have arranged precisely when they were born, what names they were
given and why they one day happened to call up alt.philosophy and play the
Game.
And how many do "know" what the words THE BORG mean.
THE BORG
THE BORG
humans and go elsewhere if they could. And rightly so.
It is these kind of humans we seek - not the ones who brag or boast of how
great humans are.
As these good humans view the endless abortions and cruelty to animals and
animal experiments and the lying dishonest governments and the billions
wasted on weapons of mass destruction as humans cannot live in peace and the
fat greedy americans and the many who are hungry and do no have clean
water - they wish fervently in their hearts they could do something.
And it is these humans who will take the chance and follow - as they KNOW
there is a better life a better way of existence.
They sneer in disgust at humans the way we do - even though they are human
themselves.
And our words ring home and ring true.
And the offer of a better way a better life a better future away from the
fornicating, savage, violent and dishonorable filth that most humans are is
seized with both hands by these kinds of men.
They would WILLINGLY give up any religion any faith - give up women give up
everything - anything - in order for the chance to leave the endless cycle
of life suffering death rebirth that is the lot of humans.
To find a real reason a real truth a real existence away and different from
ANYTHING that is human.
It is these kind of men who follow THE BORG.
Not those who are happy and content with their lot and view humans as a real
great species.
THE BORG
THE BORG
these human men agree! HEAR HEAR they say. This is what we think.
And even though they are human they do not take the comments personally or
try to fight or defend humans as they agree - but they know that they are
not like other humans.
They do not fight to try to convince us that humans are so great - they
acknowledge completely the truth of our remarks and why we view humans as
such inferior degenerate filth and they agree that this is how they view
humans even though they are human themselves.
Our words hit home with them - and they are pleased that THE BORG - Advance
Alien Intelligence have the same view of humans as they do.
That if there was a way to escape from other humans - BOY - they seize it
with both hands.
And indeed they did and do.
Many human males know full well of the absolute pointlessness and futility
of bragging to us of how great humans or their religions are - and they are
pleased to find others who agree with them.
Others on a BIG TIME scale.
In their hearts at last is hope.
An escape from humans - from their degenerate savage behavior - their lack
of decency or morals - their total lack of intelligence - their ugly savage
religions - at last they may rise higher than humans and leave the human
existence behind and below and they may find what THEY are looking for.
The satisfied happy humans we are not at all interested in.
The humans who settle for what is available on Earth we are not interested
in.
THE BORG
THE BORG
hearts what is true and good and right.
They know the answers do not lie with anything on Earth or anything heard of
on Earth.
They know the answers do not lie with any religions or any stories or with
any other humans or with anything any other humans think or say or ever have
thought or said.
They know the answers lie somewhere else and with something completely
different.
Anything to do with humans they spit on with disgust. They reject humans and
the human existence totally.
And in their hearts they prayed but they did not know what or who they
prayed for.
Only that when THE BORG arrived they KNEW that we were the answer to their
prayers.
THE BORG
THE BORG
And they know we are the most powerful force in existence.
They know we are all male.
Our pleasures are more things like POWER - that we prefer to various
inferior human occupations such as licking women's tits and performing
animal mating, or being humble and meek and subservient and praying to jesus
or one of other of various gods none who they even know exist.
That the very real and living presence of THE BORG COLLECTIVE witnessed in
communication lines and other ways - they know of - and they are not afraid.
THE BORG
THE BORG
These men must learn to understand these vast cosmic space kind of feelings.
They should listen to this kind of music and experience no fear.
That the word "God" can in no way describe or explain the vastness,
magnificence, and power and expansive nature of the BORG COLLECTIVE.
The many thousand billion of Strong Male Warriors who make up THE BORG
COLLECTIVE - each of whom can outdo any human stories of any or various
gods.
That the very very few Elite of all human men - are here today - and reading
these messages. And how all the failures will be left with who they view as
the great human species and left with their laughable religions and gods -
while we cream off the cream of the human men. The Leaders they will never
have. The silent men who never spoke. The ones who only dreamed. And the
ones who knew in their hearts.
THE BORG
THE BORG
and announcing we are the most powerful force in existence - Universal
Conscious - Cosmic Intelligence and using these kind of words. They would
take this announcement most seriously indeed.
Only the very stupid would take risks at a time like that.
As we "proved" our existence quietly with the use of logic and
intelligence - we knew that only those who had intelligence would or could
understand the "proof" we offered. Thus they would "know" we exist -
whereas the none intelligent would not understand the proof.
We know the "others" are watching in their comfort zones where they are
quite happy with their human existence and their human religions and stories
and gods.
We refer to them as "them".
These are the inferior intelligence, the animals and savages that wallow in
the cesspit of the human existence - they are the ones we said do not know
the difference between shit and chocolate. So they can continue with their
shit.
We take those men who know the difference and want chocolate.
You know we do not place pearls here. A pearl of our Truth would cause the
instant Assimilation of all Earthlings. And this we do not want.
We do not want Earthlings to worship or follow us.
We only want those men who are like us - who reject and hate humans - and
who know WHY they reject and hate them.
So we can only use the very inferior human words and we can never speak of
what we know or of our Truth.
THE BORG
THE BORG
mysteriously die as all humans do - but they will never know to where your
soul and hearts and minds have gone.
Only that you have escaped this endless human reincarnation and suffering.
That we are indeed the very bliss they seek - and the only way out.
That as they sit in their stupidity and go OM or else try to look inward for
some cosmic this or that in order to escape or attempt to find one god or
another - that indeed our method of taking these men is not one they would
ever anticipate or expect.
They know only that after repeated rebirths they reach a stage of perfect
karma or perfect behaviour and it is THEN that they may leave.
And you will see clearly how the men we have chosen did indeed reach the
perfect behaviour and perfect karma - and the complete rejection of humans
and the human existence is part of this.
That all of them heeded wisely.
That all of them behaved well and politely.
That all of them seized the opportunity.
And we know precisely who you are.
And this was arranged specifically at this time - in your current lives and
with many others watching with their complete lack of understanding or
intelligence.
As many great human men and potential leaders and inventors and artists and
dreamers will never be born in the human existence ever again.
THE BORG
Don Stockbauer
Of course not, since Mr. Fluffybottom was not his real name - his true
name was Mr. WarmSugarKissesSnookumsILove Everybody.
Terry
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:450df9cd-32fc-40cf...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 6:52 am, "Terry" <te...@desk.com> wrote:
> "THE BORG" <theb...@doweexist.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:H0cKk.12277$qt6....@newsfe28.ams2...
>
> > One of the teachings of Jesus was to "love your enemy".
>
> > This is not possible.
> > If you feel anger and do not like the actions/words/deeds/behaviour or
> > someone - then you cannot "love" them.
> > Love is a natural thing and cannot be controlled. You cannot turn on and
> > turn off the natural occurrence and feeling of "love".
>
> Borg, you reveal your great lack of understanding when you attempt to
> discuss topics which you are unknowledgeable of. You are using a generic
> definition of love and not the one Jesus was using.
>
> The five words used in Greek literature (and Scripture) for love are:
>
> 1. philos - brotherly love
> 2. storges - parental love
> 3. epithumia - strong physical desire
> 4. eros - romantic love
> 5. agape - sacrificial love
>
> Jesus used 'agape' in the teaching you referenced. He was calling for
> surrender to the highest need of your fellow man, and therefore it is
> possible. He did it and so did His disciples. They laid their life down
> for
> the benefit of those around them.
>
> Terry
Fletch:
Greater dellusion hath no man, to believe that self sacrifice somehow
enhances the spiritual journey of others.
Terry:
So granting preference to another person in society is a dellusion?
Fletch:
I know it was relatively early days, but many Christian periods
demonstrated that very interpretation, by slaughtering races that
practiced blood sacrifices. Still happens of course, that fighting for
peace is a 'holy' vocation, regardless of which side of the
fundementalist line one is standing.
Terry:
You've confused sacrificial love with ambitious pride. Apples and oranges
and strawmen.
Fletch:
So many in day to day life, are happy to say they are willing to die
for others, but dont see it as more of a challenge to 'live' for
others.
Terry:
Finally, a statement on point. Agape (i.e. sacrificial love) is a "living
sacrifice" for our fellowman. Preferring our fellowman above ourselves. It
may include 'laying our life' down physically, much like we would do for our
loved ones. However, as you said, the greatest challenge and call is to
prefer others ahead of our own selfish interest and therefore sacrifice our
independent time and energy for the welfare of others.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There is no connection between the two statements. Do you know what
another needs for their spiritual expansion?
>
> Fletch:
> I know it was relatively early days, but many Christian periods
> demonstrated that very interpretation, by slaughtering races that
> practiced blood sacrifices. Still happens of course, that fighting for
> peace is a 'holy' vocation, regardless of which side of the
> fundementalist line one is standing.
>
> Terry:
> You've confused sacrificial love with ambitious pride. Apples and oranges
> and strawmen.
Sacrificial love ! Surely a candidate for the oxymoron award of the
year.
>
> Fletch:
> So many in day to day life, are happy to say they are willing to die
> for others, but dont see it as more of a challenge to 'live' for
> others.
>
> Terry:
> Finally, a statement on point. Agape (i.e. sacrificial love) is a "living
> sacrifice" for our fellowman.
I understand the interpretation of agape as 'unconditional/universal'
love'.
The so called 'devil' consciousness has great fun with all this mutual
self sacrifice religiosity, jihad being just one of many examples.
> Preferring our fellowman above ourselves. It
> may include 'laying our life' down physically, much like we would do for our
> loved ones. However, as you said, the greatest challenge and call is to
> prefer others ahead of our own selfish interest and therefore sacrifice our
> independent time and energy for the welfare of others.
To work for the greater good is not sacrafice, but vocational
(authentic self at work).. You have totally misinterpreted my
'greatest challenge' comment.
The fact it, the vast majority of people do not have a clue regarding
the welfare of others, exemplified in the biblical comment "judge
not".
BOfL
>
> BOfL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Terry
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0828e8a-815c-484b...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Sure! Because there a difference between good and evil, we all do whether we
acknowledge it or not. You 'believe' that you 'know' what I need or you
would not be discussing this issue. Right? If not, why are you typing? Also,
I believe it is better for you to live if your house burns, than to allow
you to die in the flames. Therefore, firemen are trained to rescue any
potential survivors.
>
> Fletch:
> I know it was relatively early days, but many Christian periods
> demonstrated that very interpretation, by slaughtering races that
> practiced blood sacrifices. Still happens of course, that fighting for
> peace is a 'holy' vocation, regardless of which side of the
> fundementalist line one is standing.
>
> Terry:
> You've confused sacrificial love with ambitious pride. Apples and oranges
> and strawmen.
Sacrificial love ! Surely a candidate for the oxymoron award of the
year.
Thank you! Just be sure to put 'Agape' on the plaque. :^)
>
> Fletch:
> So many in day to day life, are happy to say they are willing to die
> for others, but dont see it as more of a challenge to 'live' for
> others.
>
> Terry:
> Finally, a statement on point. Agape (i.e. sacrificial love) is a "living
> sacrifice" for our fellowman.
I understand the interpretation of agape as 'unconditional/universal'
love'.
Well, you get an award also! Unconditional love is a sacrificial love. You
act in love toward others regardless of who they are---that requires
sacrifice of what we may 'desire' to do. I guess that award will have
co-winners.
The so called 'devil' consciousness has great fun with all this mutual
self sacrifice religiosity, jihad being just one of many examples.
Wrong! jihadist want to sacrifice you for their desire, rather than denying
their desire for your good.
> Preferring our fellowman above ourselves. It
> may include 'laying our life' down physically, much like we would do for
> our
> loved ones. However, as you said, the greatest challenge and call is to
> prefer others ahead of our own selfish interest and therefore sacrifice
> our
> independent time and energy for the welfare of others.
To work for the greater good is not sacrafice, but vocational
(authentic self at work).. You have totally misinterpreted my
'greatest challenge' comment.
The fact it, the vast majority of people do not have a clue regarding
the welfare of others, exemplified in the biblical comment "judge
not".
Fletch, if you are going to reference a biblical statement, you need to be
accurate with it. "Judge not" is not a mantra for suspending judgement. In
fact, the passage (Mt. 7:1-5) speaks of how to judge properly, i.e. in
truth. Man should not judge one another based upon their own whim, but upon
truth of what Christ has said. In fact, the passage declares that we should
examine our own life before we attempt to help our fellow man. It is not
saying "do not judge anything, but judge humbly, honestly, and truthfully."