David Payer's hypocrisy
protagoras
I did think there's an element of sincerity in many of your posts and
that serious discussion could be engaged with you. I wouldn't have
bothered otherwise. And then you come up with this fax sent to the
Secret Service. You know as well as I do what Mars is up to. You know
him precisely because of HIS fiery words. They are images, metaphors of
his anger and never harmed anyone (I admit though that Mars is
sometimes outrageous, or "extreme" as Bruce says very accurately). For
can you tell me: have his threats to your person, or Eric, or anyone
ever disrupted your life in the slightest degree? No. And they never
will. And you are aware of it. I quote you speaking to him on the 24th:
"Your illusions are real only to you.
I hope you find peace Martin Boyd/Mars."
And I quote you again the following day:
" I have faxed a copy of Martin Boyd's recent post asking for the death
of the President of the United States to the US Secret Service."
What does that mean?
Mars' words cannot be an illusion one day, and pose a real
threat the next. Nor can he be embraced on the 24th ("I hope you find
peace" ) and stabbed on the 25th ("I've faxed a copy of..."), unless
you're some kind of Judas (I'll be very careful next time you "wish me
well").
This means that you suddenly decided to take his words
LITERALLY. And it can only be because the man annoyed you and you
wanted to have your little revenge.
So I think you are the one who should apologize, David . We are
all liable to mistakes, and you may have been carried away by your
anger.
Protagoras
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Bruce
given him. Whether he learns from his own "bad" example is
yet to be seen. Lets not forget what compassion is, lets give
David some room to think, and breath. You would want no less
if you were currently in his shoes. Lets find something else to talk
about. I'm sure David has heard it all by now, and is probably
quite shocked, if not apologetic. Give him some time to collect his
thoughts, but if he continues to be arrogant and self centered.
Kick him till he stops.
If that don't work shoot him and put him out of his misery.
ITL, Bruce
Hammond
<bru...@cstone.net> writes:
>
> I think David is hurting enough from the onslaught we have ALL
>given him. Whether he learns from his own "bad" example is
>yet to be seen. Lets not forget what compassion is, lets give
>David some room to think, and breath. You would want no less
>if you were currently in his shoes. Lets find something else to talk
>about. I'm sure David has heard it all by now, and is probably
>quite shocked, if not apologetic. Give him some time to collect his
>thoughts, but if he continues to be arrogant and self centered.
>Kick him till he stops.
>
> If that don't work shoot him and put him out of his misery.
>
>ITL, Bruce
>
>
Well,
I don't exactly agree with Bruce. David seems to be easily shocked; and easy
to sneak-up on. Not an enviable situation to be in--but how else is he going
to learn? His threads are too painful to read. One after the other, Craig,
Bill, Protagoras, and Mars have chewed him to shreds....and all he can say is:
'Hey!! You broke the rules...!!' Tears nearly come to my eyes......
But the only thing I can really talk about is his response to Mars' error.
When David saw this, he paniced. (Who can blame him? It was not only
shocking, but also against the law.) David could have avoided the latest
chewing-out by letting things follow their natural course. The Secret Service
is always on the job. I don't think anyone needs to tell them anything--they
have ways of finding out. But David got excited.
And why not? This is all new to him. The question is: will he persevere in
the face of opposition? David is tough; but tender-hearted. No matter what
ya'll do to him, he'll get back up. Ya'll haven't got any idea who your up
against. Don't be fooled by his innocence.
Kick him if you must; but when he gets familiar with ya'll's verbal antics; the
party will be over. He has nothing to apologize for.
JHammR
"Aggressive parental love (Agape) unifies the Cosmos into one inseparable
family of God."
protagoras
> When David saw this, he paniced. (Who can blame him? It was not only
> shocking, but also against the law.) David could have avoided the
latest
> chewing-out by letting things follow their natural course. The
Secret Service
> is always on the job. I don't think anyone needs to tell them
anything--they
> have ways of finding out. But David got excited.
> JHammR
You seem to have a grip on reality sometimes, Hammond.
How do you manage with the belief you hold?
Hammond
<protag...@my-deja.com> writes:
Protagoras,
You flatter me now. My belief mandates that I grip reality firmly by the
scruff of the neck and find its nature. There is no way to be a child of the
Creator and not master reality; it's a prerequisite--otherwise you're just a
nutcase.
But how are you going to believe you're the son of God if can't do anything
God-like. Getting a handle on reality is only the first step. Then comes the
tough part; using reality to serve all mankind. Finally, the essential
part--connecting everyone to God.
There's a whole bunch of unspoken commentary that goes along with these 3
steps; but mainly it's a matter of thinking big and figuring out how to get
from there (the big picture) to here (the individual experience). The tread
connecting the two extremes has to run from one end to the other.
My belief is not a shield, but rather a tool for personal and social
transformation. I can measure changes in my environment, so I can keep track
as I try to influence my social circle. And as my circle rallies around me, I
know it's time for us to advance outward to the next larger circle. Once the
process starts, it continues until eventually the Cosmos is ours. (I haven't
worked out all the details for getting from here to there, yet, but I'll get
there eventually.)
I can't imagine what you think the DP is all about.
protagoras
- Hammond, you know what I think of this unspoken commentary, of this
skipping of stages. This is where we lose sight of reality and where we
adopt someone else's interpretation of what it is, where we get tangled
in the meshes of the myth this 'someone else' invented, precisely in
order to catch us.
> My belief is not a shield, but rather a tool for personal and social
> transformation. I can measure changes in my environment, so I can
keep track
> as I try to influence my social circle. And as my circle rallies
around me, I
> know it's time for us to advance outward to the next larger circle.
Once the
> process starts, it continues until eventually the Cosmos is ours.
- "the Cosmos is ours": it's a movement which aims at conquering the
world, rather than serving it.
(I haven't
> worked out all the details for getting from here to there, yet, but
I'll get
> there eventually.)
>
> I can't imagine what you think the DP is all about.
> JHammR
-it's a myth.
All the best.
Hammond
<protag...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> There's a whole bunch of unspoken commentary that goes along with
>these 3
>> steps; but mainly it's a matter of thinking big and figuring out how
>to get
>> from there (the big picture) to here (the individual experience).
>The tread
>> connecting the two extremes has to run from one end to the other.
>
>
>- Hammond, you know what I think of this unspoken commentary, of this
>skipping of stages. This is where we lose sight of reality and where we
>adopt someone else's interpretation of what it is, where we get tangled
>in the meshes of the myth this 'someone else' invented, precisely in
>order to catch us.
>
Protagoras,
As I've said before, I skip the unwieldy commentary in my posts, not in my
thinking. Now if I was convinced that you didn't know the DP I might include
the connecting commentary so you could follow my thinking.
I'm very aware that a gap in a train of thought is an invitation to
manipulation; but I'm not trying to manipulate you. (And if I were, you
wouldn't know it.) If you want to know the entire truth, then you have to do
your own research.
In doing your own research you'll find that before a certain time in history
you'll hit a bedrock of mythology. How you get through that is the trick which
causes everything else to click. The DP (among other religious thought) goes
back to Adam and Eve.
Obviously Adam and Eve were not the names of the first God conscious couple.
The specifics are lost in the mists of time. But they represent 'every person'
--every man and every woman. At the time they supposedly lived--about 6,000
years ago--something happened which produced a major leap in the development of
human civilization. (This is demonstrated by the archeological record.)
Along with the technological development came an increased moral
responsibility--this 'technology/morality' issue continues to plague us today.
And for some reason, Adam and Eve made the wrong choice.
Now, what was their 'wrong choice'? Well, for one thing it was a choice which
placed their consciences in a subordinate position to the desires of their
flesh, (as demonstrated by the instability of lust-based relationships which
undermines the stability needed for raising children to their full potential).
The closest I can come to pin-pointing the problem is the manipulation of the
religious mythology of the Sumerians by the Babylonians. (Over a period of
decades the Babylonians introduced two new gods to the Sumerians--Marduke and
Tiamat. They overshadowed the harmonious relationships between the male and
female gods of Sumeria and replaced them with the position-seeking male god
Marduke and the terrifyingly destructive female god Tiamat. In an agreement
between Marduke and the existing pantheon, Marduke would slay Tiamat in
exchange for being declared king of the gods. When Marduke slew Tiamat, the
priests of Marduke took over the Sumerian society, and in a short time Sumer
came under control of the Babylonians.)
This caused all kinds of problems for Sumer and subsequently, all mankind. The
DP/SMM resolved all this by placing the conscience back into the dominate
position.
For you to say that DP is a 'myth' is a short-sighted understatement. And such
a statement ignores the significant role that myths play, to this very day, in
the daily lives of everybody on the planet.
You may be laboring under the illusion that 'myth' means 'false'. This is not
the case. Based on my research, 'myth' refers to origins, and dissolves the
time and space which separates us from those who came before us. It's a
powerful tool. But I don't want you to think that I'm endorsing all myths or
all mythic figures. And I do want you to be aware that there can be a
confusion between myths and the people identified with the myths. John Wayne
was not a righteous cowboy, and Ronald Reagan was not a war hero; but they
played one in the movies. They reminded people of the rugged
individualist-myths upon which America was founded and inspired millions to be
better people.
Romulus and Remus were suckled by a wolf before establishing Rome. According
to the French, England was founded by a wizard, (but in actuality it was
founded by a Hellenized Babylonian). Whether you believe a myth or not, there
are many others around you who do. Adam and Eve communed with God until they
made their fatal error. All of human history has been an attempt to discover
the error and correct it so that humans can once again freely commune with God.
This is the sort of bandwidth-consuming commentary that I usually skip. But if
you insist, I'll provide it. More grist for the mill, eh?
Moody
>This caused all kinds of problems for Sumer and subsequently, all mankind. The
>DP/SMM resolved all this by placing the conscience back into the dominate
>position.
No.........Moon came up with a tale and sold it to you and a
few others. I say few because the member number will never even come
close to any of the REAL religions.
> All of human history has been an attempt to discover
>the error and correct it so that humans can once again freely commune with God.
Nope, can't agree....not ALL of mankind wants to commune with
God. You forget there are races that have NO belief.......but then
they are less than people because they don't believe as you do, yes?
Moody
Hammond
Martin,
Yes; the manipulation of mythologies extends to the ET-aspect of space culture.
And yes, it is a handy tool for social control. The basic tool/controlling
myth is that ETs are 'superior' to human beings. Once that's accepted, then
it's easy to get folks to grovel. (Until the DP, Judeo-Christianity had the
only human-centric response to the popular ET-myth--human beings are the
children of God. But over the centuries the message has gotten watered-down.
The DP revives that one basic tenet, and strengthens it to the point that not
only are human beings the true children of God, but we are also at the center
of the cosmos. (Don't take that the wrong way.)
I'm surprised about the abduction statistics--what are they, btw? I think the
stats indicate that America is the target of some kind of psychological
(warfare) operation. (If you can control the American population, then the
rest of the Earth's population is easy.)
There's an on-going attempt to make America the capitol of New Babylon; but God
inspired the Internet to give all mankind a last chance at maintaining its
freedom. I wouldn't call myself 'the new Machiavelli'....at this time....
Now for the second question.
I've responded to friendly invitations to discuss my beliefs in the past....;
can I trust you? (of course I can trust you; your Damian's brother.....)
I'll keep this real short, but it will be shocking.
My love for God was such that I was reaching the conclusion that I was/might
possibly be, the Messiah. When I heard the DP, (ironically, in the basement of
a coffeehouse), I was somewhat disappointed that the lecturer didn't say:
'...and his name is...JHammR. (I knew it was all over when he said the guy
already had a family, and I was just starting my life.)
But I figured that if I'm not the Messiah, then it might be wise to learn all I
could from him and his folks. A decade later, the UFO section of the daily
paper got started and I became assistant managing editor--and did a lot of
research. A couple of decades after hearing DP I figured I'd learned enough
to try-out what I learned. Then HomeChurch got started and I had the perfect
opportunity.
Needless to say; there's a lot of unspoken commentary.....
What's your response to that?
JHammR
---
<<
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010129125439...@nso-fg.aol.com...
> In article <2u2d6.4852$YT3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Martin
> Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >BTW Hammond, did you know that it is widely rumoured, even by some
> >notable academics here, that the Arc of the Covenant was brought to
> >Britain by the Knights Templar in the middle ages. That could go a
> >long way to explain this tiny country's disproportionate impact
upon
> >world history could it not ?
> >In a national paper recently it was said that it is under a castle
> >near Edinburgh, but I'm not sure if it's just the queen putting the
> >story about to mess with our minds :-)
> >
>
> Welcome back Martin,
> I hadn't heard that about the A/C, but have heard that the throne of
David is
> at Windsor castle; that Jerusalem is actually in England; and that
> England/British Isles are the remnents of Atlantis....But in any
case, the
> manipulation of religious mythologies is a hallmark of the
Babylonians.
Good to hear from you too Hamm,
Well I never.......
Does the manipulation of mythologies extend to those who promulgate
the modern myth of ET control ?
Curious that none of the ET abduction (etc) statistics seem to hold
true anywhere but the USA. Are they trying to manipulate the myths of
the modern world do you think? Is America in fact the New Babylon ? Is
JHammR the new Machiavelli?
Greetings High Priest Jackhammer of the Babylonian Fellowship, you are
invited to the Royal Circle ;-)
Interesting that, as with Eric, you to have ignored the serious
invitation to discussion in favour of a discussion of the proffered
irrelevance........
> JHammR
> "Aggressive parental love (Agape) unifies the Cosmos into one
inseparable
> family of God."
Martin
"Expounding insubstantial theories with a religious zeal is a valid
way to gain attention for onesself, to seek to raise one's ordinary
life to the extraordinary and to make a shedload of cash along the
way." >>
protagoras
Hammond:
As I've said before, I skip the unwieldy commentary in my posts, not in
my thinking. Now if I was convinced that you didn't know the DP I
might include the connecting commentary so you could follow my thinking.
Federico:
-The point is the DP is the theory where loopholes are to be found.
I'm very aware that a gap in a train of thought is an invitation to
manipulation; but I'm not trying to manipulate you. (And if I were,
you wouldn't know it.)
-I never thought you were, to be honest.
I rather suggest that I was manipulated by a doctrine, i.e. a
collection of unfounded statements loosely held together, and that you
still are. And it is out of a brotherly concern that I come to you and
question your own statements when they reflect those of the doctrine
you hold be true (there's an element of irony in the 'brotherly
concern' but I do appreciate the exchange).
If you want to know the entire truth, then you have to do your own
research.
-I've done it.
In doing your own research you'll find that before a certain time in
history you'll hit a bedrock of mythology.
-Of course.
(Before we go further a bit of etymology... Myth = from the
Greek 'muthos', i.e. fiction, or 'reshaping' of a theme, experience,
belief... into a plot [P.Ricoeur's definition])
The question is: do we analyse myths or do we believe them? do we step
aside and try to understand them (critical analysis) or do we adhere to
them and let ourselves be manipulated (belief / mythical thought)?
How you get through that is the trick which causes everything else to
click. The DP (among other religious thought) goes back to Adam and
Eve. Obviously Adam and Eve were not the names of the first God
conscious couple. The specifics are lost in the mists of time. But
they represent 'every person' --every man and every woman.
-Why should these mythical beings (or fictional characters)
REPRESENT 'every person'?
At the time they supposedly lived--about 6,000 years ago--something
happened which produced a major leap in the development of human
civilization. (This is demonstrated by the archeological record.)
-What archeological record is there of such a leap?
You see, Hammond. Your approach to myth is not critical but grounded on
faith: you take for granted that the two mythical characters represent
every person, that some dreadful event occurred at the beginning of
times... because someone I needn't name told you so and you trust him.
Well, I don't trust him. Why should I?
See you.
Federico
Hammond
Any loopholes that you find in the DP are the result of not looking deeply
enough.
Astronomers are familiar with this phenomena. The more they looked into deep
space the less convinced they became that ours was the only galaxy in the
universe.
The same is true with DP; there's more to it than meets the eye. (I guess
there was no room for all the unspoken commentary that could accompany the
book.) That leaves it up to the reader to check out the leads given in the
book. If thurough, independent research isn't done by the reader, the DP seems
to be full of loopholes.
For one to be manipulated by the DP et. al. one must disengage the mind; not
reflect upon what's said; and act without thinking. What you call 'unfounded
statements' I call 'missing the point'.
Share my frame of mind for a moment. [A guy shows up and says the DP is a
textbook of truth. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I accept the
statement but begin verifying the statement that DP is a textbook of truth.
Following the idea that the Bible was written so that we may know how God is
working through human history, I apply the same idea to the DP--it was written
so that we may know how God is working through human history. This means the
Bible and the DP should be read from God's point of view. 'What is it God is
trying to convey to the reader?' is the question to be kept in mind during the
investigation. In reading the two books it becomes clear that the lives of
individuals had an impact on the lives of those who came after them; the
individuals changed the direction of society. How did they do this? They
stood on some kind of relationship with God--God changed the direction of
society through them; as with the writing of the Bible and DP--God wrote them
working through folks with paper and pen. To me this indicates that the books
are true, and all things should be measured through the books. So when I
research I look for confirmation of what the books say. Confirmation is either
available or it's not available; what the books say is either true or not true.
Confirmation may not be found in the writings of popular authors of history,
but this doesn't mean confirmation doesn't exist. To me it means 'find another
source'--or 'keep looking'. Eventually, when I find confirmation, it usually
isn't a major event in the individual's life, but is contained in some obscure
reference or event--but none the less, there it is. And sometimes I have to
experience something for myself to find the confirmation I seek.]
I find P. Ricoeur's definition of 'myth' to be lacking. He's squeezed the life
out of mythology by reshaping and reducing it to elements in a 'plot'.
Technnically this is true, but it avoids discussing the impact that myths have
on the lives of people.
In responding to myths I think the wise thing is to respond in both ways.
Understanding them is as essential as going with their flow. But with
understanding comes the decision of whether or not to accept them as guides for
our lives. (I recommend not accepting 'evil' myths which manipulate, but
whole-heartedly recommend accepting 'good' myths which inspire.) It's
impossible to totally eliminate myths from our lives--they're everywhere and in
every aspect of our lives. Eliminating, or reducing them to plot elements,
cripples us as human beings.
The myth of Adam and Eve is important to humans, (Judeo-Christians humans
anyway), because they tell a complex story in a few words. It informs us about
how human beings came to be (God made us); it informs us about why the world is
not 'ideal' (A&E separated from God); and it informs us about why everybody we
know is separated from God (sin entered the world through A&E's family). It
also informs us that we are all related to each other. And that God maintains
some kind of (basic) relationship with us; this informs us that there is hope
for the future.
Mythic characters similar to A&E first developed in Mesopotamia; according to
the archeological record. The archeological record also shows that about 6000
years ago Sumer was the site of numerous new developments, all of which we now
consider essential to human civilization. (Check out some books by Kramer--an
amateur Sumerianologist who translated some of their clay tablets into
English--I read them before hearing the DP.)
I learned about what sparked the rise of human civilization in Sumer from a
chance encounter with an astro-archeology book during a break in a series of
lectures for NewsWorld staff-members.
I learned about Babylonian religious forgeries from an unlikely source, again
in a book store. (Zacharia Sitchen was haunting the book store, trying to
boost the sales of his first(?) book--forgot the exact title--something like
'The 12th Stairway to the Planet of the Gods'. He asked what I was interested
in; I told him 'Sumeria' and he highly recommended his book.....)
I'm surprised that you would think that I would unquestioningly accept
something that a guy who doesn't speak English would say. But I'm equally
surprised that you've accepted a definition of 'myth' which obscures its
potency. I find nothing bizarre about accepting the ideas associated with A&E;
I've found them to be useful tools in my daily life. And because it provides
an answer to why the world isn't ideal, I don't have to personally wrestle with
that question--although the more I look into the story, and consider how it
explains today's world, the more I find confirmation of DP's interpretation.
I've come to trust the DP (and SMM) after years of research. I can't tell you
to trust him--especially when you're satisfied with such a horrible definition
of 'myth'. All I can say is do your own research and come to your own
conclusions; of course I'll encourge you to keep reseaching until you find
confirmation of the DP's interpretation of history..... Or you can just trust
SMM.
But here's why I wouldn't recommend blindly trusting him. The issue he's
dealing with center's on human beings (re)establishing a deep personal
relationship with God. I think it's much better for each person to wrestle
with that issue for themselves. And in pulling answers from various sources of
your own choosing, you yourself develop the ability to see God's point of view,
and you yourself learn to think the way God thinks, and you yourself establish
your own relationship with God. And then you yourself won't have a need for
SMM. (uhm....there's a lot of unspoken commentary behind that last sentence.)
Looking forward to your response.
JHammR
--
In article <9561i0$kf6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, protagoras
<protag...@my-deja.com> writes:
Martin Anderson
I have replied to your points within the message
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010130001223...@nso-fn.aol.com...
> [from another thread]
>
> Martin,
> Yes; the manipulation of mythologies extends to the ET-aspect of
space culture.
> And yes, it is a handy tool for social control. The basic
tool/controlling
> myth is that ETs are 'superior' to human beings. Once that's
accepted, then
> it's easy to get folks to grovel. (Until the DP, Judeo-Christianity
had the
> only human-centric response to the popular ET-myth--human beings are
the
> children of God. But over the centuries the message has gotten
watered-down.
> The DP revives that one basic tenet, and strengthens it to the point
that not
> only are human beings the true children of God, but we are also at
the center
> of the cosmos. (Don't take that the wrong way.)
No, I will not take it the wrong way, and I take your point here.
Perhaps it is important at the current stage of development of the
human psyche to feel that we are special and important. Almost
certainly a lack of such a feeling in people seems to lead to
psychological distress.
On the other hand such a view has great dangers attached.....
The white races most certainly held this view very strongly when they
went out to explore the world and it led to great achievements, but it
is a sad fact that such certainty of primacy in the eyes of their
creator was not appreciated quite so much by the Africans, Asians,
Native Americans and other indiginous peoples of the world, who were
treated to the consequences of such a view of the cosmos (world).
Thinking back on the impact of such a world view on your forefathers,
I am surprised that you can recommend such certainty of belief to a
more extended race which could in the future meet up with even longer
lost extra-terrestrial cousins. Do you suggest that we prepare to
repeat the sins and follies of our past lack of sophistication?
>
> I'm surprised about the abduction statistics--what are they, btw? I
think the
> stats indicate that America is the target of some kind of
psychological
> (warfare) operation. (If you can control the American population,
then the
> rest of the Earth's population is easy.)
>
> There's an on-going attempt to make America the capitol of New
Babylon; but God
> inspired the Internet to give all mankind a last chance at
maintaining its
> freedom. I wouldn't call myself 'the new Machiavelli'....at this
time....
I have no access to hard statistics as far as claimed alien abduction
goes, but nearly all accounts of which I am aware originate in the US.
This does not indicate to me that there is any kind of psychological
warfare going on, rather that in general the American population is
more suggestable and attention-seeking than others.
I would not call you the new Machiavelli at this time either, but I
suspect that you are working on it. A suspicion which is confirmed by
your account below.....
My response is that you are evidently trying to use the tried and
tested formula of the DP, add to the recipe a bit of extra-terrestrial
mistrust and to use your new concoction to manipulate people for the
purposes of personal aggrandisement and gain.
As long as you're honest about it and no ET's get hurt, I suppose it's
harmless enough, but the dangers to you and your anticipated acolytes
are grave. If you make a fortune I will tip my hat to you. You would
probably make a passable Messiah at the head of a new ragtag & bobtail
army ;-)
Martin
Hammond
Martin,
It's always been a part of the human psyche to become important. And I think
you're right; a lack of such a feeling does seem to lead to psychological
distress. This is not a bad thing; this is what human beings are all about.
Most folks who feel their importance don't know DP, and have nothing to attach
their feelings to; they havn't got a clue as to how to fulfill their desire for
importance. Some do really strange stuff.
Oh Martin; why do you insist that people don't learn from history? The problem
with the certainty of the 'white races' is that they were self-centered.
Although they hoped and believed they were God's gift to humanity, they
neglected to extend the same specialness to every human being. (This is one of
the wonders of America; everybody is royalty....)
Why are you so reluctant to endorse the idea of stepping to the forefront?
What's the alternative? Withdraw into oneself?
The Universe will not go away. (It's been here a long time and will probably
be around for another long time.) Human beings have this innate desire to know
who they are and how they fit in the scheme of things. Why should we even
entertain the idea that we, human beings, have no significance in the Cosmos
just because we look so tiny compared to the matter which fills the 20 billion
square light years of the known Universe?
I know it's kind of presumptious to believe that the lives of people have
Cosmic significance. But it beats the alternative. I'll apologize if I'm
wrong....
If we should meet up with our ET 'cousins', I promise to conduct myself in a
way which pleases God and demonstrates that I'm a true son of God. I'll do my
best to make God proud, and to win the hearts of our 'cousins'. (Is that a bad
thing?)
No I don't suggest repeating the follies of the past. Here's what I suggest:
Everyone should learn the DP so they can know how to respond properly when they
encounter our 'cousins'.
I find it humorus that you think Americans are suggestable attention-seekers
because of the number of the sightings/abductions coming from the US. I'm sure
you realize that the US is a very large country, and other countries have a
much smaller population than the US. To put things on a more even basis,
compare the stats of a European country and a US state. Even then; I chuckle.
I hope to catch C-SPAN's program on the book 'Nicelo's Smile'--about
Machiavelli. Whether or not I'm 'working' on becoming another Machiavelli or
not, is no concern of yours--unless I start recommending following the
management style of Vlad the Impaler.....
Again you bring up the chuckles....So I'm honing my manipulative skills for
fame and fortune, eh? I'm glad I have your permission to pursue my 'harmless'
activities. And thanks for the warning about the dangers--I never would have
noticed the snares and bear traps in my path had you not called my attention to
them. SMM trained me (and others) very well.
Oh; btw; were there no other comments on my testimony other than 'you're a
harmless, disaster-prone, nut'? I think I feel insulted.....
JHammR
--
In article <uyId6.10574$cD2.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
protagoras
> Federico,
> Any loopholes that you find in the DP are the result of not looking
deeply
> enough.
> Astronomers are familiar with this phenomena. The more they looked
into deep
> space the less convinced they became that ours was the only galaxy in
the
> universe.
-The analogy is irrelevant. A text is a text and the sky the sky. I
cannot grasp the Infinite but I can grasp a meaning. I read the DP
several times when I was a member and didn't find much in it. Anyway
what mattered to me at the time was God, and only him (for about two
years all my mind was focused on meeting him); trying to be close to
him was the reason why I joined, and (I've only become aware of it
recently) the reason why I left.
> The same is true with DP; there's more to it than meets the eye. (I
guess
> there was no room for all the unspoken commentary that could
accompany the
> book.) That leaves it up to the reader to check out the leads given
in the
> book. If thurough, independent research isn't done by the reader,
the DP seems
> to be full of loopholes.
>
> For one to be manipulated by the DP et. al. one must disengage the
mind; not
> reflect upon what's said; and act without thinking. What you
call 'unfounded
> statements' I call 'missing the point'.
-There is talk of Adam, Eve and Lucifer as if there were real people
but without the slightest shred of evidence of their existence. If
that's not a loophole, I wonder what it is. The historical cycles are
grossly mistaken and would make any historian laugh. If that's not a
loophole, I wonder what it is.
> Share my frame of mind for a moment. [A guy shows up and says the DP
is a
> textbook of truth. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I
accept the
> statement but begin verifying the statement that DP is a textbook of
truth.
> Following the idea that the Bible was written so that we may know how
God is
> working through human history,
-Is God working through human history? Is God working at all?
I apply the same idea to the DP--it was written
> so that we may know how God is working through human history. This
means the
> Bible and the DP should be read from God's point of view.
-What is God's point of view? Is it something that swoops down on you
like a falcon on a rabbit? Or does God hail you sometimes and
say, "this is my point of view, don't mess with it"?
'What is it God is
> trying to convey to the reader?' is the question to be kept in mind
during the
> investigation.
-I should assume first that God is speaking to me through the Bible,
wild theories like the DP or the Book of Mormons, or red Indians
creation myths. Well, I don't.
If he wants to say something he should speak directly, and not hide
behind a self-appointed prophet. I assume he must have his reasons for
keeping quiet and won't bother him if he prefers the company of winged
creatures.
In reading the two books it becomes clear
-nothing is clear.
that the lives of
> individuals had an impact on the lives of those who came after them;
the
> individuals changed the direction of society. How did they do this?
They
> stood on some kind of relationship with God--God changed the
direction of
> society through them; as with the writing of the Bible and DP--God
wrote them
> working through folks with paper and pen.
-Were you there? Are there eye witnesses of God's presence at the back
of Jeremiah, John, Paul..., directing their pens?
To me this indicates that the books
> are true,
-a very very very hasty conclusion.
and all things should be measured through the books. So when I
> research I look for confirmation of what the books say. Confirmation
is either
> available or it's not available;
-it's not.
what the books say is either true or not true.
> Confirmation may not be found in the writings of popular authors of
history,
> but this doesn't mean confirmation doesn't exist. To me it
means 'find another
> source'--or 'keep looking'.
-You can do this indefinitely. Some guys are still looking for the yeti
(I'm not sure of the spelling) on the Himalayas.
Eventually, when I find confirmation, it usually
> isn't a major event in the individual's life, but is contained in
some obscure
> reference or event--but none the less, there it is. And sometimes I
have to
> experience something for myself to find the confirmation I seek.]
>
> I find P. Ricoeur's definition of 'myth' to be lacking. He's
squeezed the life
> out of mythology by reshaping and reducing it to elements in
a 'plot'.
-Have you checked what the man wrote?
If you had you would know that he did some outstanding work on this
notion and some others in an essay entitled "Time and Narrative" (he's
a Frenchman but well-known in US academic circles), and that he drew
this definition by commenting Aristotle's poetics (I only have the
French version of "Time and Narrative" where he uses the words "mise en
intrigue" for mythos; I tried to give you a translation, which may be
falty). There can hardly be better credentials, as far as the
definition of the word is concerned.
> Technnically this is true, but it avoids discussing the impact that
myths have
> on the lives of people.
-This has been thoroughly studied by ethnologists and structuralists
like Levi-Strauss, J.P. Vernant (Greek mythology), or a post-
structuralist like R. Barthes (modern life: "mythologies"). You can
relate none of their approaches and their conclusions to the DP. And
the reason is that the DP does analyse myths, nor the way people deal
with myths, but IS a myth. The view of Genesis in DP is only
a mythical interpretation of a myth: i.e. it transforms a myth into
another one. You haven't left yet the haze of mythical thinking,
Hammond.
> In responding to myths I think the wise thing is to respond in both
ways.
> Understanding them is as essential as going with their flow. But with
> understanding comes the decision of whether or not to accept them as
guides for
> our lives.
-That's it: it's a matter of faith (to guide one's life), not of
understanding.
See you
Martin Anderson
> Oh; btw; were there no other comments on my testimony other than
'you're a
> harmless, disaster-prone, nut'? I think I feel insulted.....
> JHammR
>
somehow despite the impressive number of words that you write, only a
few of them make sense to me. Even then it is only in isolated or
disconnected parts.
In this regard you do indeed emulate your chosen teacher. I can rarely
make head nor tail of a Moon speech for similar reasons. They seem to
wander across an impressive amount of ground, often with no
discernable direction or point.
Either your brains work in a different way from mine, or we are simply
working from such divergent assumptions in life that we cannot
connect.
Can you understand me?
I am sorry, but I cannot understand you.
If I may be so forthcoming as to suggest that I am far from
unintelligent, what do you think could be the reason for my inability
to see what you are trying to say?
Your written communication seems well practised and yet I do not
understand, so I wonder if I am meant to. I get annoyed when I attempt
to communicate and encounter what appears to be a deliberate policy to
mystify rather than explain.
I am coming to the conclusion that you are an intellectual poseur.
There is an old saying amonst the Brits: "Bullshit baffles brains.",
which when you first encounter it can be very true. Unfortunately for
you, I've seen it done it before.
Martin
(Now you can feel insulted if you like :-)
Craig Maxim
"Martin Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:CT1e6.14764$YT3.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Hammond,
(...)
> I am coming to the conclusion that you are an intellectual poseur.
Bingo. ;¬)
Dan Fefferman
>Can you understand me?
>I am sorry, but I cannot understand you.
don't worry martin, you are not alone. non members, current members and former
members alike experience this with the hammster.
my advice... keep engaging him. he's a delightful if somewhat (what do I mean
somewhat!) eccentric personality. After several years of reading his posts, I
feel I have finally begun to scratch the surface the hammmeister.
actually martin boyd's advice to him (to the effect that he needs to... er...
[to put it in UC terms]... engage in the heavenly act of union with God through
intimate relations with an eternal mate) may not be that far off the mark.
What's happening on the blessing front Hamm? Inquiring minds want to know?
Dan
Bruce
need to prattle on like you do, I'm not sure. Cause it leaves you wide
open to attack. You will inevitably become unbelievable when they find
your statements filled with half baked ideas.
(I think I'm beginning to see what craig was refering to earlier)
I don't know where you come up with JUST three steps. Cause you
left out the most important one. Numero Uno, is YOUR connection to
GOD. I don't even see it listed.
>
>My belief is not a shield, but rather a tool for personal and social
>transformation. I can measure changes in my environment, so I can keep track
>as I try to influence my social circle. And as my circle rallies around me, I
>know it's time for us to advance outward to the next larger circle. Once the
>process starts, it continues until eventually the Cosmos is ours. (I haven't
>worked out all the details for getting from here to there, yet, but I'll get
>there eventually.)
>
>I can't imagine what you think the DP is all about.
>JHammR
>"Aggressive parental love (Agape) unifies the Cosmos into one inseparable
>family of God."
Enough said, Get a life will ya? Make sure it comes with GOD, cause
it seems to be the only thing missing in your life otherwise.
ITL, BYesunim
Eric B. Richardson
> >But how are you going to believe you're the son of God if can't do
> >anything
> >God-like.
1) > Getting a handle on reality is only the first step.
2) > >Then comes the
> >tough part; using reality to serve all mankind.
3) > >Finally, the essential part--connecting everyone to God.
> >
> >There's a whole bunch of unspoken commentary that goes along with these
> >3
> >steps; but mainly it's a matter of thinking big and figuring out how to
> >get
> >from there (the big picture) to here (the individual experience). The
> >tread
> >connecting the two extremes has to run from one end to the other.
and then:
In article <7p8h7tkf892tp59u7...@4ax.com>, Bruce
<bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
>
> I don't know where you come up with JUST three steps. Cause you
> left out the most important one. Numero Uno, is YOUR connection to
> GOD. I don't even see it listed.
I separated out the three steps for you, but Bruce, what exactly do you
think getting a grip on reality, the first step means? How can you get a
grip on reality without really connecting to God? How can one do the
third step, unless the first two were already predicated on one's
connection to God?
Bruce, you also said:
>
> (I think I'm beginning to see what craig was refering to earlier)
>
Does that refer to Craig's agreement with Martin's wondering if Hamm was
just a "poseur." Pretending to intellectuality just to impress people?
Is that what you think?
Geez, Louise, not a one of you all can operate on the faith that
Unificationists here are sincere, can you? You have to accuse
insincerity, you really can't deal with us as people can you?
--
When someone is invaded by Satan, he loses all spiritual support
and inspiration. Trust in God, as well as a sense of gratitude
to Him, is lost. One begins to see everything through human eyes.
Hammond
You won't find God hiding in the words of a text, but a text will help you see
God in the things S/He created. If you just grapple with the words you may
miss the point of the text. What is your concept of God? (Your God-concept
may be causing you to overlook evidence of God's existence.)
Do you really think that not having Adam's, Eve's and Lucifer's social security
number means that they didn't exist? Don't you know that you can't write about
God-relating-to-man without slipping into mythology. Why should the DP be any
different?
Granted, the idea of the need for a Messiah is firmly rooted in the idea of the
Original Sin; and that the whole concept of Original Sin revolves around AE&L;
and that no one knows what they look like, or their address, or anything else
about them--except what they did, (which is based on ancient documents of
dubious authorship). So the idea of the need for a Messiah is based on
mythology; so what? To paraphrase a familiar movie-line: 'Use the farce, Loki;
use the farce.'
As noted last time, myths have a dark side; but they can be used to inspire and
transform people. As I've noted in a previous post, (a long time ago), I've
traced Adam and Eve back to Mesopotamia and located a rather broad
approximation of the time they lived. I can't point out their house; I can't
say what they had for dinner; but I can point to unusual activity in that area
about 6000 years ago. (I'm a little shakey on the exact time due to several
things: no written record; the imprecision of estimating astronomical
anomolies--exploding star; the imprecision of archeological dating of the
creation of their written phonetic language; the length of time, after the
exploding star, it took before the people in the area began doing things that
had never been done before. So, I settle for the popularly accepted 6000-year
time frame.) Even then, the evidence appears to be a random collection of
events, until they're connected together. But to the 'untrained' eye, they
still contain no meaning beyond their existence. This is where mythology comes
in. (Adam and Eve did not write an autobiography, and nobody wrote their
biography, but that's because nobody could write until who knows how long
after.) AE&L is not a loophole. It's a myth.
Don't get me started on the historical cycles. (It looks like I'm going to
have to do a definitive piece on that.) It's widely acknowledged that there
are cycles in history. There's little agreement on when the cycles begin and
end, and almost no agreement on what they mean. The DP interpretation of the
historic cycles is the only one that takes God's involvement in human affairs
seriously. That's not a loophole; that's unexplored territory.
>-Is God working through human history? Is God working at all?<
Surely you jest. What is the point of history? What things have happened
during the past? Is the past a myth? Are we, like a slice of cheese;
separated from what came before and what comes after? Are individually wrapped
cheese slices a metaphor for modern man's understanding of time? Isolated from
the past and from the future, destined to await the final unwrapping without a
clue as to how we came to be or for what purpose we're about to be used?
Trust me when I say that God's point of view is concerned with the general
welfare of all people.
Now wait a minute Federico; you cut yourself off from the magic of myth, but
then expect God to talk to you directly. Without myth, there is no room for
God to speak. Does one need to be present at the creation to know that it
exists? I don't think so. But I think the issue is one of 'trust'; how do we
know that God was working in the past; how do we know God will work in the
future? Some things have to just be accepted before they become visible. (I
know this is not the most reasonable-sounding of statements, but sometimes
things appear goofy when taken out of their context.) I agree that the search
for confirmation can go on indefinately. The yeti is yet to be found; and
there are people who are still looking for proof of God's existence. At some
point a 'yes or no' decision has to be made, and then the results of that
decision have to be dealt with.
I'm familar with some of the names you mention; I'd be interested in other
translations of 'mise en intrigue'--you may have overlooked something. Myths
can be analysed all day, and their meaning and value can still be overlooked.
The DP analyses myths and then adds more to it. So yes, I agree that DP is
mythic in its nature. And the fact that you recognize that it DP transforms a
myth into another one is, IMHO, a major step toward understanding how God uses
myth to communicate with people. (Is this so bad?)
I've had to work hard to enter this haze of mythic thinking. But part of my
efforts have been to separate the good (life-affirming) myths from the bad
(life-denying) myths. And after years of (informal) study I've had to decide
whether or not mythology is helpful to me. I concluded that it is; and my life
is richer for it. And the understanding I've gathered along the way has opened
the past and cleared the way to the future. To me, it's obvious that myth
speaks louder than words. But as you point out; it's a matter of faith. But
like I've said, some things have to be accepted before they become visible.
Til next time;
JHammR
---
In article <959lad$p6j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, protagoras
<protag...@my-deja.com> writes:
Hammond
I am so crushed by your inability to comprehend the meanings of my words, that
I have to fiercely fight the overwhelming urge to write a poem.
I'll continue to resist poetics; but let me say that the 'problem' may be in
your lack of awareness as well as my inability to find the right words to carry
you over the chasm. As Dan, (who is currently recovering from some cutting
edge-things he's said elsewhere, while basking in an increasingly-substantial
music career), points out, this isn't the first time folks have had difficulty
with my words. (I'm comforted by the fact that Socrates, Plato and Jesus had
the same 'problem'.) I suspect that if you comprehended all my words, you
would have a conversion experience, and of course, that wouldn't do; now would
it? (I'm suggesting that you're subconsciously blocking the meanings of the
words so as not to have to change your point of view.)
It's true that in my style I like to cover large areas/topics with a minimum of
words. And sometimes a link which is obvious and 'old news' to me, may be a
brand new and incredibly subtle point to others. (It would be helpful if you
would let me know which words you have trouble with; that way I could find
substitutes which you could more easily relate to.)
But hear me now. My motives are simple and unchanging. I love you because God
loves me. I hope you understand that, because everything I say refers back to
those 7 words. This is also the point of reference for SMM's activities: he
loves us because God loves him. (Now what kind of children of God would we be
if we were sparse in our explainations. We would be failing to reflect the
hyper-creative nature of God if all we said was 'I love you because God loves
me' and left the stage. There's so much unspoken commentary hidden behind and
between each of those 7 words....So, we elaborate. And since there are almost
as many ways to say 'I love you' as there are to demonstrate the love, there
are many things to talk about; and so we ramble; but the message, the point, is
always the same: God loves us [human beings].) But in this day and age, who
>really< believes that?
Our brains may indeed work in different ways, but all brains seemed to have
been created in such a way that ensures all things can eke out a living. But
think of the quality of life of Neanderthals, and of the Cromagnons--there were
obviously subtle differences in their thinking. And it's true that we are
working from 'divergent assumptions'--your culture predisposes you to trust
tradition; my culture predisposes me to not trust tradition--but contrary to
your opinion, I think we can connect. We live in the same Universe; we were
all created by the same God; there has to be at least one common point among
us.
When you ask if I can understand you; of course I can understand you. I
understand you all too well. But don't apologize for not understanding me.
(Like I said before, Jesus was misunderstood too.) Let me apologize for not
being more understandable; I must make more effort in this direction. So let
me see if I can get you to understand the reason for your inability to
comprehend my words.
You're smart, at the expense of your heart.
Here's some of the unspoken commentary behind those words: your grasping at the
letters of the words exceeds your grasp of the spirit behind the words. You
rely too much upon legalism and give no quarter to poetry. You reduce things
to their bare-bones, minimal, expression and insist that everyone else do the
same. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. And, speaking of 'divergent
assumptions', your attitude stinks. (Is this understandable enough for you?)
You are meant to understand every word I write; after all, you asked and I'm
responding. I get more than annoyed when I detect deliberate misdirection.
But I'm so good-natured that I'll kick a liar in the balls rather than give
them what they really deserve. (But we can discuss your motives for promoting
this 'sharing of beliefs' at another time.)
Your conclusions are your own. Just make sure they're based on a full range of
experiences rather than pub talk.
JHammR
--
In article <CT1e6.14764$YT3.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
Bruce
I'll respond.
Getting a grip on reality, is getting a grip on reality. I don't
see the WORD, or Praise of GOD in anything he mentions.
Instead he appears to be praising himself, for "getting a grip".
>
>Bruce, you also said:
>
>>
>> (I think I'm beginning to see what craig was refering to earlier)
>>
>
>Does that refer to Craig's agreement with Martin's wondering if Hamm was
>just a "poseur." Pretending to intellectuality just to impress people?
>Is that what you think?
Nope, that's not what it refers to. Craig pointed out earlier that
Hammer was living in somekind of illusion of his own making. Some
of his "consistant" remarks about his own "glory" leads me to think
Craig may be right.
>Geez, Louise, not a one of you all can operate on the faith that
>Unificationists here are sincere, can you? You have to accuse
>insincerity, you really can't deal with us as people can you?
Nope, wrong again. We have every indication of the fact that
"moonies" are sincere. WE just can't tell what they are sincere about
half the time. Cause they hide thier true intentions so well. The
precise reason Martin started his War in the first place. Cause Martin
simply got tired of ya'lls lies and misinformation.
Somebody in YOUR movement coined the turn "white lie" or
"heavenly deception". Which happens to be frequently abused.
Many members have gotten so used to "heavenly deception",
they no-longer even recognize the truth.
Remember who you are dancing with. But feel free to ask me
to dance anytime you like.
ITL, BYesunim
Eric B. Richardson
<bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
>
> Remember who you are dancing with. But feel free to ask me
> to dance anytime you like.
>
> ITL, BYesunim
>
I am not dancing with anyone. You are pretty full of your glory.
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called "Random Signatures" into your Preferences folder.
Bruce
<lby...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <qg7j7t8374cri1th2...@4ax.com>, Bruce
><bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Remember who you are dancing with. But feel free to ask me
>> to dance anytime you like.
>>
>> ITL, BYesunim
>>
>
>I am not dancing with anyone. You are pretty full of your glory.
Missing the point as usual, and avoiding the truth by accusing
others. I spoke about Hammer, why do you all the sudden find the
need to take a poke (attack) at me out of resentment. Perhaps because
you have NO legitimate reply to what I actually said. Could it be
because you see too much truth in the statement of what I said?
Why do you find it so easy to coverup, or gloss over the truth?
Everytime I speak the truth, most "moonies" have only accusations
and/or denial as a reply.
You dance everytime you "tango" with words. As far as any "glory"
I owe it ALL to GOD, cause S/HE IS the orchestrator of the music in my
soul. Glory ain't the issue here, who it's for IS.
Unless you return everything to the Father, how do you expect to be
considered a child of GO(o)Dness. If there is Glory in my lifes path
it's because the Father has it, NOT ME!
Me, I'm just an asshole trying to get by, just like the rest of
YOU. Totally unworthy of any praise what so ever. If I get any
it's by the grace of GOD that I do, and I am eternally grateful to
GOD for any and all blessings. I'll not rest until the WHOLE
WORLD understands how GLORIOUS GOD IS. Even if "moonies"
don't feel the desire to PRAISE GOD, I'll continue to do so with ALL
my heart and soul.
Life as a "moonie" is supposed to be for GOD. Why you continue
to put everything else first (even yourselves) can only amount to
idolatry.
ITL, BYesunim
Martin Anderson
> Martin,
> I am so crushed by your inability to comprehend the meanings of my
words, that
> I have to fiercely fight the overwhelming urge to write a poem.
Why posture about it? Either write a poem or do not, but don't try to
impress me with your your artistic capabilities if you do not intend
to deliver. Or do you want encouragement my little flower?
> I'll continue to resist poetics; but let me say that the 'problem'
may be in
> your lack of awareness as well as my inability to find the right
words to carry
> you over the chasm.
If the problem is mine, how come there are already those even of your
*own side* who find the same problem. Do they also suffer a lack of
awareness? All the world but Hamm perchance?
>As Dan, (who is currently recovering from some cutting
> edge-things he's said elsewhere, while basking in an
increasingly-substantial
> music career), points out, this isn't the first time folks have had
difficulty
> with my words. (I'm comforted by the fact that Socrates, Plato and
Jesus had
> the same 'problem'.)
Yes, to install yourself with such elevated company is a good career
move, you have indeed learned well grasshopper. I wonder if the above
would be so keen on the comparison. You do not suffer with excessive
humility do you Hammster.
>I suspect that if you comprehended all my words, you
> would have a conversion experience, and of course, that wouldn't do;
now would
> it? (I'm suggesting that you're subconsciously blocking the
meanings of the
> words so as not to have to change your point of view.)
No, on the contrary, I have in the past read and re-read your posts in
the hope of discerning some consistent line of thought. All I can find
is unconnected circles.
> It's true that in my style I like to cover large areas/topics with a
minimum of
> words. And sometimes a link which is obvious and 'old news' to me,
may be a
> brand new and incredibly subtle point to others. (It would be
helpful if you
> would let me know which words you have trouble with; that way I
could find
> substitutes which you could more easily relate to.)
So kind Hammond, but again it is not the words themselves which pose
the problem, but rather the haphazard fashion in which they are thrown
together. In fact you do the opposite of what you claim and cover very
little ground excessive verbiage.
>
> But hear me now. My motives are simple and unchanging. I love you
because God
> loves me. I hope you understand that, because everything I say
refers back to
> those 7 words. This is also the point of reference for SMM's
activities: he
> loves us because God loves him. (Now what kind of children of God
would we be
> if we were sparse in our explainations. We would be failing to
reflect the
> hyper-creative nature of God if all we said was 'I love you because
God loves
> me' and left the stage. There's so much unspoken commentary hidden
behind and
> between each of those 7 words....So, we elaborate. And since there
are almost
> as many ways to say 'I love you' as there are to demonstrate the
love, there
> are many things to talk about; and so we ramble; but the message,
the point, is
> always the same: God loves us [human beings].) But in this day and
age, who
> >really< believes that?
I hear you loud and clear, but still only "white noise"
> Our brains may indeed work in different ways, but all brains seemed
to have
> been created in such a way that ensures all things can eke out a
living. But
> think of the quality of life of Neanderthals, and of the
Cromagnons--there were
> obviously subtle differences in their thinking.
Here is a typical example, what relevance to our discussion is there
in the above? You show that you know, and can spell the names, of two
early hominids, but to what end? If you were 12 years old I would be
impressed.
>And it's true that we are
> working from 'divergent assumptions'--your culture predisposes you
to trust
> tradition; my culture predisposes me to not trust tradition--but
contrary to
> your opinion, I think we can connect. We live in the same Universe;
we were
> all created by the same God; there has to be at least one common
point among
> us.
Yes, we both think that we are pretty damn clever, and are both
inclined to butt (verb) heads to see who is the cleverer. Maybe the
noun would be more appropriate after all :-)
> When you ask if I can understand you; of course I can understand
you. I
> understand you all too well. But don't apologize for not
understanding me.
> (Like I said before, Jesus was misunderstood too.) Let me
apologize for not
> being more understandable; I must make more effort in this
direction. So let
> me see if I can get you to understand the reason for your inability
to
> comprehend my words.
>
> You're smart, at the expense of your heart.
>
> Here's some of the unspoken commentary behind those words: your
grasping at the
> letters of the words exceeds your grasp of the spirit behind the
words. You
> rely too much upon legalism and give no quarter to poetry. You
reduce things
> to their bare-bones, minimal, expression and insist that everyone
else do the
> same. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. And, speaking of
'divergent
> assumptions', your attitude stinks. (Is this understandable enough
for you?)
Ah-ha straight out with the "hearts are trumps" call, I see. Come on
Hammster, have some self respect. This old chestnut is not usually
trotted out until at least the introductory skirmishes are over.
I do not insist that others reduce their comments to a minimalist
approach, I love a well-turned phrase, a redolent metaphore, a bit of
peotic licence and even the odd bit of 'armless alliteration, but you
go too far.
Your writing is designed neither to inform nor to elucidate, but to
bask in your unique understanding of a world view which even to you is
still a work in progress.
> You are meant to understand every word I write; after all, you asked
and I'm
> responding. I get more than annoyed when I detect deliberate
misdirection.
> But I'm so good-natured that I'll kick a liar in the balls rather
than give
> them what they really deserve. (But we can discuss your motives for
promoting
> this 'sharing of beliefs' at another time.)
Hamm I asked about people's conversion experiences in good faith.
Yours was very curious. It seemed to me that you had not been
converted at all, but thought you had found something you could use.
I responded to you as you asked, and then you asked if there was not
more comment on your testimony. There was. You don't like it. Tough
luck.
What is all this "kick in the balls" crap? If you have got a problem
with the way you have been treated then muster your linguistic skills
and say your piece, but for God's sake don't burble on any more than
is strictly necessary to convey your point.
Go on, give me what I really deserve; discuss my motives, tear down my
pretensions to sentience, shine light on the dark umbra of my
blinkered mind, shred and dismember the puny body of my thought and
stand proud and victorious: Hammer of the Babyonian Empire, defender
of the faith, knower of the unknowable.
There, I'm not against a little poetry when the mood takes me :-)
Maybe I'll show you one of my poems if you coax me just a little and
praise me quite a lot.
In return I will naturally be prepared to explain any of the words
that you do not understand (touché I think).
>
> Your conclusions are your own. Just make sure they're based on a
full range of
> experiences rather than pub talk.
But pub talk is so informative Hamm, you should try it instead of
jitterbugging around in those coffee houses, too "hepped-up" on
caffeine to maintain a conversation.
Martin Anderson
Good to see you're still about. How about your conversion stuff,....
any chance of a considered account of yours?
I promise I won't sell your soul to Satan, or whatever it is Eric
thinks I can do with such kowledge ;-)
And yes, Hamm really should see about relieving the pressure on his
"family jewels". I've heard that a long build up can start to press on
the lower parts of the brain ;-)
Martin
Dan Fefferman <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010131233712...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
Eric B. Richardson
<bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:16:38 GMT, "Eric B. Richardson"
> <lby...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <qg7j7t8374cri1th2...@4ax.com>, Bruce
> ><bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Remember who you are dancing with. But feel free to ask me
> >> to dance anytime you like.
> >>
> >> ITL, BYesunim
> >>
> >
> >I am not dancing with anyone. You are pretty full of your glory.
>
>
> Missing the point as usual, and avoiding the truth by accusing
> others.
Accusing? let's see in the post I answered you did the following:
-accused hamm of letting his tongue run amuck
-accused hamm of not having enough respect for God (some of us Bruce,
accept the relationship with God as a given and don't feel a need to
browbeat ourselves with piety)
-accused hamm of not having a life, and the one that he has being full
of half-baked ideas (from you of all people!)
-accused hamm of not having any relationship with God
In your next post, you:
- accused me ofbutting in, as if anyone who wishes to comment on
anything that they find on Usenet shouldn't
- accused hamm of being full of his own glory
- accused hamm of living in an illusion
- accused all Unificationists, each and every single one with no
exception, of being insincere, iow, of hiding their true intentions, of
being liars and particpating in a campaign of misinformation
- accused all Unificationists, each and every single one with no
exception, of being so deluded as to be unable to recognize truth at all
and in this post, you:
-accuse me of sidestepping the issues and avoiding the truth
-accuse me of accusing you when all I did was make the simple statement,
that you are pretty full of your own glory
-accuse me of being resentful
-accuse me of idolatry
-accuse me of being insincere, by saying that I am dancing with my words
Sorry, but I am just defending my faith. I do so in a straightforward
manner.
So I have no idea where this "remember who you are dancing with" crap
comes from, as if you are some intellectual giant that knows it all, but
I do know that you are so full of accusation of others and the glory of
yourself that it boggles the mind.
The rest of this post comes off as pretty much false piety, when you
spend so much time telling other people how they could be better if they
were just like you.
> I spoke about Hammer, why do you all the sudden find the
> need to take a poke (attack) at me out of resentment. Perhaps because
> you have NO legitimate reply to what I actually said. Could it be
> because you see too much truth in the statement of what I said?
> Why do you find it so easy to coverup, or gloss over the truth?
> Everytime I speak the truth, most "moonies" have only accusations
> and/or denial as a reply.
>
> You dance everytime you "tango" with words. As far as any "glory"
> I owe it ALL to GOD, cause S/HE IS the orchestrator of the music in my
> soul. Glory ain't the issue here, who it's for IS.
>
> Unless you return everything to the Father, how do you expect to be
> considered a child of GO(o)Dness. If there is Glory in my lifes path
> it's because the Father has it, NOT ME!
>
> Me, I'm just an asshole trying to get by, just like the rest of
> YOU. Totally unworthy of any praise what so ever. If I get any
> it's by the grace of GOD that I do, and I am eternally grateful to
> GOD for any and all blessings. I'll not rest until the WHOLE
> WORLD understands how GLORIOUS GOD IS. Even if "moonies"
> don't feel the desire to PRAISE GOD, I'll continue to do so with ALL
> my heart and soul.
>
> Life as a "moonie" is supposed to be for GOD. Why you continue
> to put everything else first (even yourselves) can only amount to
> idolatry.
>
> ITL, BYesunim
>
--
Bruce
use. You're gonna read into it whatever you want anyway. Go
ahead and think whatever you want about me. But you won't
get to heaven thinking that way. You have twisted my words
to the point I don't even recognize what you say about me.
You maybe should invest in a GO(o)D reading "comprehension"
class cause I NEVER accused ANYONE, in the manner you describe.
Sure, I made some broad generalizations about "many" certainly not all
"moonies", that happened to be very accurate even if it was a
"stereotype". Other remarks I made, were either in the form of a
question, or a suggestion, or observation. Where you come up with the
term "accusation" for my "everysingle" word (using your own terms, and
finding it very awkward). Is quite absurd. I find your whole reply
quite petty, and without merit of any kind.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:12:58 GMT, "Eric B. Richardson"
Dan Fefferman
>any chance of a considered account of yours?
Hello Martin Anderson..
I probably missed those threads. But in a nutshell, I grew up in a secular
jewish family and began searching for God when I went away to school at
Berkeley (that's in california). Deeply influenced by Kazinsakis' (sp?) book
The Last Tempation of Christ (much better than the picture), the sermons of
Martin Luther King Jr, and the preaching of Rev CL Franklin (Aretha's father.)
I was a mucisian as well as a student, so music was a big influence on me as
well. Bob Dylan, blues, bluegrass, gospel, R & B, the Beatles.. that kind of
thing. The great delta bluesman Robert Johnson introduced me to his spiritual
struggle with the devil, kind of a counterbalance to King and Franklin.
I had a powerful experience of Christ's passion on my 18th birthday, and a
vision involving a calling by a christ-like spiritual master on New Year's day,
1968. Yes, these were drug related, and also yes, I think they were somehow
real and important. I went through a year or two of deep struggle trying to
reconcile these experiences and influences with my personal background and
daily life. I was consciously searching for answers to the questions the DP
deals with, and also hoped to find a community of idealistic spiritually
oriented people. I was never into free sex, and had come to believe that drugs
could not be used as a means to enlightenment. As they say in the UC, "he was
prepared."
So there I was, at 20, a nice jewish boy from L.A. desperately seeking a way to
undertand God and Jesus in Berkeley. One day a young lady walked up to me and
told me she wanted to share a "new teaching" with me "based on the teachings of
the korean sage Sun Myung Moon, a christian master from the east."
The rest is history.
Dan Fefferman
Terriallen
>; discuss my motives, tear down my
>pretensions to sentience, shine light on the dark umbra of my
>blinkered mind, shred and dismember the puny body of my thought and
>stand proud and victorious:
Martin you're one cool cat. (beatnik praise in honor of your poetry). I like
you. Good writer you are.
Terry J.
Eric B. Richardson
<bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
> I was gonna reply to this point by point, but figured whats the
> use. You're gonna read into it whatever you want anyway.
I only take your words at face value.
Hammond
<lby...@home.com> writes:
>
>Does that refer to Craig's agreement with Martin's wondering if Hamm was
>just a "poseur." Pretending to intellectuality just to impress people?
>Is that what you think?
>
>Geez, Louise, not a one of you all can operate on the faith that
>Unificationists here are sincere, can you? You have to accuse
>insincerity, you really can't deal with us as people can you?
>
Thanks Eric.
I just call 'em as I see 'em.
JHammR
Hammond
(Dan Fefferman) writes:
Dan,
Thanks for the back hand(ed compliment). [Moody; see what I mean about 'peer
pressure' pushing folks toward couplehood?]
Dan, I've embarked on a grand experiement. One which has revealed to me the
true reason for arranged marriages. The difficulty in choosing a spouse for
oneself is so horrendous that young adults beg their parents to make the
decision for them....And I have come to appreciate the idea of arranged
marriages. But, of course I want to choose my own spouse--I want a home-grown
Kansas City girl.
For a number of reasons, the progress is relatively slow. (I use several
filters but mainly the age-filter--good for general purposes--but do you know
how difficult it is to ask a woman's age?) Soon I'll start dating; by that
time I'll have my new teeth and can unabashedly smile in public. (I hear that
women really like men who smile a lot, and Ferengi-style teeth never became
popular in KC.)
I'm upgrading my wardrobe; and may get a tux--khakis are good all-round pants
but have such a proletarian-feel to them. Although I still wear colored
tee-shirts, I've found that sweaters and shirts with buttons can take you many
more places--in a couple of trial-runs I've blended in on the Country Club
Plaza (a semi-ritzy area of KC) fairly well. And when my multi-season boots
finally give out I'll upgrade to sensible shoes.
I'm testing my approach, and have discovered that not all women look forward to
having 12 sons; so I don't emphasize that so much. I figure that by time I'm
ready for prime-time I'll have the intergender lingo down pat. I may have to
reduce my coffeehouse-time to increase my prospects. Most female customers are
students who are in puppy-love with their male study partners, and sometimes
with their female study partners. I now know what Lucifer was going through;
but I know not to make his mistake. I may have to hang out in another
location; I tried a bar once. (A while back I attended a Chambers of
Commerce open house at a bar in Westport--a bo-bo hangout area. I don't know
which was the greater shock: the speed with which a blonde approached me, or
the sudden awareness that a bunch of Irish eyes weren't exactly smiling at
me....) Maybe I'll try the Barnes and Noble on the CC Plaza. I'll decide by
the spring; when I'm 'brand new'.
Anyway; I hope to have everything settled before SMM goes to spiritworld. If
not, I may approach you and Susan to Bless me......gotcha
Thanks for asking.
Hammond
I'll tell you why my tongue runs amuck; this stuff is so exciting! (As the the
grand tapestry unfurls before before you, everything just falls into place--the
message is undeniable--God loves people!) And at the same time, if words were
stars, my output would in no way rival God's.
And what's worse; I don't mind being open to attack. It provides opportunities
to test the mettle of my sword. Unbelievability is not a concern of mine;
ideas are half-baked only when the heat of activity hasn't been applied. If
you don't believe me, try it yourself. (It's kind of a 'rush'.)
I've found, when applying DP, just 3 steps to the fulfillment of God's ideal,
and they seem to work fine. What have you discovered in your research (besides
that I'm a heathen for not mentioning God first)? As Eric pointed out, you
can't get a grip on reality without a relationship with God. There are many
reasons for this, but the major one is that God is the creator of all
things--without a relationship with the creator, there's no way to understand
the creation, (the socio-political world as well as the natural world).
I agree with you on the last point. I need a life; but a meaningful life only
comes with a wife. And that's my next project. (The main decision I have to
make is whether to attend a matching or find my own bride; both options are
filled with unexpected twists and turns.)
When you say:
"Enough said, Get a life will ya? Make sure it comes with GOD, cause
it seems to be the only thing missing in your life otherwise." I'll take that
as a testimony to my perfection of heart; meaning it's time for me to get
married.
JHammR
--
In article <7p8h7tkf892tp59u7...@4ax.com>, Bruce
Hammond
My public stance is to show distain for 'poetry'--because most of it sucks.
This doesn't mean I don't like poetry; the carefully chosen words which convey
volumes.
It means that I hate most of the shit passed off for poems; I've often
threatened to write a poem about why I hate poetry.....it's a joke Martin.
You may have hit the nail on the head--there are many members who 'suffer from
a lack of awareness'. Ironically, on another list I laid out 'the'
prerequisite for 'awareness': learning to think the way God thinks. (Oh I know
it sounds ludicrious.) But it's not impossible to do, and it clears up a lot
of mysteries. Welcome to Hammworld.
Martin, I know myself. Do you think I open a textbook and scribble-down
funny-sounding names and claim them as friends? I think the folks I mentioned
would agree that we share similar points of view. No brag; just fact.
And as evidence of the fascinating content of my words, you yourself admit to
reading and re-reading them. No one told you to do that; yet you do. What am
I to think? (I secretly harbor the opinion that I'm greater than Plato....)
Find a 'consistent line of thought' if you can; but your efforts will be better
rewarded by paying attention to what I'm talking about, rather than to what I'm
saying. You can run in circles all day and still be no closer to the end.
Haphazard fashion of the words, not a problem posed; meaning shines through
regardless--know what I mean? Concentration on each and every instead of them
all together source of chaos epistemological. Every word works; every word
carrys it's own weight. Expect nothing else. Message the same, always, God
loves human beings.
If you were 12 years old, you wouldn't know what I mean by the subtle
differences in the thinking of 'two early hominids'--but surely you've wondered
why the Neanders disappeared and the Cromags thrived? What made it possible
for the Cromags to flourish? The grace of God? Of course not. One group was
more aware of their environment than the other group. (I was drawing a
parallel between the critics and the members; duh)
Martin, when you first mentioned 'hearts are trumps' as a handy club I agreed
with you and determined not to resort to such a device. But I see that this is
what it comes down to. Hearts are trumps no matter how the cards are dealt;
there's no way around it. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't change
the fact. And I find it interesting that the heart-solution is the very thing
you refuse to deal with. But, as you say; I go too far.
My writing is designed to entertain. And like a good magician, I slip in a
lesson or two in the midst of the entertainment. When I can, I elucidate. For
example; my unique understanding of the world is still a work in progress--how
could it be anything else? We live a time of unprecidented change occuring at
an increasingly rapid pace. How is it that your view of the world is not a
work in progress?
I'm not sure I believe that you asked about conversion experiences in good
faith; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now. Yes, I did/do
believe the DP is a tool; a very good tool. And I'm using it for all it's
worth--the DP promises oneness with God, and dagnabit--I'm going to find out if
it can fulfill that promise. (Is that so wrong?)
And what's wrong with 'burbling on'? Everyword is essential to the point. Oh
there are times when I feel like keeping it short, but if the short version
doesn't convey the feeling I want it to convey, I keep typing until it
does--sometimes the result is a portrait that fits in a locket; sometimes it's
a mural.
Why do you tempt me to say more than is necessary?
JHammR
---
In article <0Wme6.4731$LQ2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Bruce
<lby...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <54hk7t0eodhjmv07n...@4ax.com>, Bruce
><bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
>
>> I was gonna reply to this point by point, but figured whats the
>> use. You're gonna read into it whatever you want anyway.
>
>I only take your words at face value.
You couldn't prove it by me, with the way you have just finished
twisted my words around. Then making up the absurd excuse that it's at
"face value". When it quite obviously isn't when you so obviously add
and take away from my words. You change the value of my words, and
then say it's at "face value", well you have a funny idea of what
"face value" is.
Bruce
Bruce
>And what's worse; I don't mind being open to attack. It provides opportunities
>to test the mettle of my sword.
Those that live by the sword, shall die by the sword. YOU best be
puttig your sword away, or you are liable to regret it.
ITL, Bruce
Eric B. Richardson
<bru...@cstone.net> wrote:
Everything I posted concerning your statements was contained in your own
prose within this very thread.
In fact just in this post, you accuse me of:
-twisting your words
-making up excuses
-lying about what you say by taking and adding words.
Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how these are not accusations?
I have only taken your words at face value. Show us how I haven't.
Hammond
(Terriallen) writes:
TerryJ,
Yes, Martin is a good writer; but his poetry sucks. It doesn't connect with
it's target (me). Well, I would like to shine light on the dark umbra of his
blinkered mind, but I have no desire tear down his pretentions to sentience,
nor to shred and dismember the puny body of his thought, nor to stand proud and
victorious over the remains of his world view. I don't know why he thinks I
would want to do those things, but he sure seems to be inviting me to try. And
I don't understand what motivates him.
JHammR
Terriallen
Hamm:
> I don't know why he thinks I
>would want to do those things, but he sure seems to be inviting me to try.
>And
>I don't understand what motivates him.
Maybe he's just having a little fun. He sure had me laughing....
TerryJ
Dan Fefferman
Thanks for the update and sorry to hear about your teeth. I remember you having
a beautiful smile. And good luck finding a home grown KC gal.
....
Hamm's still in Kansas City
In Kansas City Hamm will stay
Hamm's still in Kansas City
In Kansas City Hamm will stay
They've got some crazy little women there
And he's bound to marry one some day
Oh he might find his own
Or he might just be shown
But one thing's for sure
She's going to wear that gown
Hamm's still in Kansas City
In Kansas City Hamm will stay
Hamm's still in Kansas City
In Kansas City Hamm will stay
They've got some crazy little women there
And he's bound to marry one some day
Dan
Martin Anderson
Terriallen <terri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010202074256...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Martin Anderson
But what about the actual "Leap of faith" which Protagoras mentions.
This is the crucial bit that I am after.
Did you feel such a moment? Who were you with? What was the mood at
the time? etc.
I have cut & pasted the original questions I posed:
"I think that it would do all current members a power of good to
analyse their individual conversion experiences with a view to either
acknowledging or dismissing the possibility that a very special
atmosphere was created for them by the group who was influencing them
at the time of conversion.
It might be helpful if this were done with reference to their own
parts in the subsequent conversion of others. What specific behaviours
were being performed, by whom, how and why?"
The rest is history up until now, but tomorrow isn't yet...........
Regards,
Martin
Dan Fefferman <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010202003020...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
Martin Anderson
In the words of the great Muhammad Ali: "Is that all you got sucker?".
I hope that you will not mind, but I have cut and pasted your
responses to the previous message into the one before it so that I can
follow the ebb and flow of the conversation more easily.
I can also see to what extent you have answered the individual points
You may have heard of Occam's razor, well for the 21st century they
have been mass produced and mounted on gang-rollers. It's called
Martin's Mincer and you are about to be processed:
> >> Martin,
> >> I am so crushed by your inability to comprehend the meanings of
my
> >>words, that
> >> I have to fiercely fight the overwhelming urge to write a poem.
> >Why posture about it? Either write a poem or do not, but don't try
to
> >impress me with your your artistic capabilities if you do not
intend
> >to deliver. Or do you want encouragement my little flower?
> My public stance is to show distain for 'poetry'--because most of it
sucks.
> This doesn't mean I don't like poetry; the carefully chosen words
which convey
> volumes.
> It means that I hate most of the shit passed off for poems; I've
often
> threatened to write a poem about why I hate poetry.....it's a joke
Martin.
Oh, I see ?.... Not :-(
> >> I'll continue to resist poetics; but let me say that the
'problem'
> >may be in
> >> your lack of awareness as well as my inability to find the right
> >words to carry
> >> you over the chasm.
> >
> >If the problem is mine, how come there are already those even of
your
> >*own side* who find the same problem. Do they also suffer a lack of
> >awareness? All the world but Hamm perchance?
> You may have hit the nail on the head--there are many members who
'suffer from
> a lack of awareness'. Ironically, on another list I laid out 'the'
> prerequisite for 'awareness': learning to think the way God thinks.
(Oh I know
> it sounds ludicrious.) But it's not impossible to do, and it clears
up a lot
> of mysteries. Welcome to Hammworld.
It clears up nothing though, does it Hamm? The concepts exist only in
your head, they have no practical meaning or relevance. Hammworld
looks like a very messed up place to me. I have no wish to enter.
> >>As Dan, (who is currently recovering from some cutting
> >> edge-things he's said elsewhere, while basking in an
> >increasingly-substantial
> >> music career), points out, this isn't the first time folks have
had
> >difficulty
> >> with my words. (I'm comforted by the fact that Socrates, Plato
and
> >Jesus had
> >> the same 'problem'.)
> >
> >Yes, to install yourself with such elevated company is a good
career
> >move, you have indeed learned well grasshopper. I wonder if the
above
> >would be so keen on the comparison. You do not suffer with
excessive
> >humility do you Hammster.
> Martin, I know myself. Do you think I open a textbook and
scribble-down
> funny-sounding names and claim them as friends? I think the folks I
mentioned
> would agree that we share similar points of view. No brag; just
fact.
No, I don't think that you just pick any funny sounding names, only
those that you know other people regard as someone to look up to. I
think that the folks you mention would push views such as yours away
with as long a pole as possible.
> >>I suspect that if you comprehended all my words, you
> >> would have a conversion experience, and of course, that wouldn't
do;
> >>now would
> >> it? (I'm suggesting that you're subconsciously blocking the
> >>meanings of the
> >> words so as not to have to change your point of view.)
> >No, on the contrary, I have in the past read and re-read your posts
in
> >the hope of discerning some consistent line of thought. All I can
find
> >is unconnected circles.
> >> It's true that in my style I like to cover large areas/topics
with a
> >>minimum of
> >> words. And sometimes a link which is obvious and 'old news' to
me,
> >may be a
> >> brand new and incredibly subtle point to others. (It would be
> >helpful if you
> >> would let me know which words you have trouble with; that way I
> >could find
> >> substitutes which you could more easily relate to.)
> >So kind, Hammond, but again it is not the words themselves which
pose
> >the problem, but rather the haphazard fashion in which they are
thrown
> >together. In fact you do the opposite of what you claim and cover
very
> >little ground using excessive verbiage.
> Haphazard fashion of the words, not a problem posed; meaning shines
through
> regardless--know what I mean? Concentration on each and every
instead of them
> all together source of chaos epistemological. Every word works;
every word
> carrys it's own weight. Expect nothing else. Message the same,
always, God
> loves human beings.
I see, so it does not matter how badly you express yourself, you think
that somehow your meaning shines through and that it is my duty to
fathom it out. You pretend that I do not undertand because I
concentrate on each and every word, but do not take them as a whole.
Despite the nice big word you use, this is nonsense. Do you imagine
that I pore over one word and when I understand it move on to the next
without reading a sentence, a paragraph or a piece as a whole?
Far from it. I have to stop to think more carefully only when the
writer makes a particularly complex point, or when he does not express
himself clearly.
My problems with you usually fall into the latter category.
As you say, every word *should* work, and *should* carry it's own
weight, that is the point *I* was making. You arrange yours carefully
until they look nice, but that is only part of the trick, you have to
create meaning which others can relate to or your efforts are wasted.
> And as evidence of the fascinating content of my words, you yourself
admit to
> reading and re-reading them. No one told you to do that; yet you
do. What am
> I to think? (I secretly harbor the opinion that I'm greater than
Plato....)
> Find a 'consistent line of thought' if you can; but your efforts
will be better
> rewarded by paying attention to what I'm talking about, rather than
to what I'm
> saying. You can run in circles all day and still be no closer to
the end.
This is classic Hammond bullshit, it has no meaning. I have read and
re-read your words in the past to see if there was something in them,
but now I am becoming convinced that there is not.
> >> Our brains may indeed work in different ways, but all brains
seemed
> >to have
> >> been created in such a way that ensures all things can eke out a
> >living. But
> >> think of the quality of life of Neanderthals, and of the
> >Cromagnons--there were
> >> obviously subtle differences in their thinking.
> >
> >Here is a typical example, what relevance to our discussion is
there
> >in the above? You show that you know, and can spell the names, of
two
> >early hominids, but to what end? If you were 12 years old I would
be
> >impressed.
> If you were 12 years old, you wouldn't know what I mean by the
subtle
> differences in the thinking of 'two early hominids'--but surely
you've wondered
> why the Neanders disappeared and the Cromags thrived? What made it
possible
> for the Cromags to flourish? The grace of God? Of course not. One
group was
> more aware of their environment than the other group. (I was
drawing a
> parallel between the critics and the members; duh)
Sorry Hamm, but again the "Duh" should be your own. You have expressed
yourself so poorly that you could not be understood, you then miss my
point and cobble up a hasty explanation of your earlier burblings. At
the end of course it is naturally because I am "duh"(a bit slow), that
I did not see the scintillating brilliance of your parallel. Tsk, tsk.
Bad Hammond, naughty boy!
> Martin, when you first mentioned 'hearts are trumps' as a handy club
I agreed
> with you and determined not to resort to such a device. But I see
that this is
> what it comes down to. Hearts are trumps no matter how the cards
are dealt;
> there's no way around it. You may not agree with it, but that
doesn't change
> the fact. And I find it interesting that the heart-solution is the
very thing
> you refuse to deal with. But, as you say; I go too far.
> My writing is designed to entertain. And like a good magician, I
slip in a
> lesson or two in the midst of the entertainment. When I can, I
elucidate. For
> example; my unique understanding of the world is still a work in
progress--how
> could it be anything else? We live a time of unprecidented change
occuring at
> an increasingly rapid pace. How is it that your view of the world
is not a
> work in progress?
Yes, my view of the world is also a work in progress, but apart from
this point everything else you say here is just more chicanery.
Your writing is designed to entertain yourself, not others. It does
not entertain me, it irritates. I have seen you quite deliberately
bait others as well and it obviously makes you feel very clever.
I'm afraid you bear more resemblance to a cheap conjuror than a good
magician.
> I'm not sure I believe that you asked about conversion experiences
in good
> faith; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now. Yes, I
did/do
> believe the DP is a tool; a very good tool. And I'm using it for
all it's
> worth--the DP promises oneness with God, and dagnabit--I'm going to
find out if
> it can fulfill that promise. (Is that so wrong?)
>
> And what's wrong with 'burbling on'? Everyword is essential to the
point. Oh
> there are times when I feel like keeping it short, but if the short
version
> doesn't convey the feeling I want it to convey, I keep typing until
it
> does--sometimes the result is a portrait that fits in a locket;
sometimes it's
> a mural.
>
> Why do you tempt me to say more than is necessary?
> JHammR
"Don't throw me in the briar patch Brer Fox" ?
> >
> >>
> >> Your conclusions are your own. Just make sure they're based on a
> >full range of
> >> experiences rather than pub talk.
> >
> >But pub talk is so informative Hamm, you should try it instead of
> >jitterbugging around in those coffee houses, too "hepped-up" on
> >caffeine to maintain a conversation.
> >
> >> JHammR.
As well as taking your writing bit by bit, I have considered it as a
whole, as you suggest, to look at the meaning underlying the words,
and of course it is there.
The meaning is:
"Look at me, aren't I clever? This is my new theory what do you
think? Bullshit, eh? Well you are a fool. I'm like Jesus or Plato. I
don't brag, it's the simple truth. You cannot understand what I can
perceive because I am Hamm I am. Things are as I say. Each word must
carry it's own weight but at the same time does not matter as I
choose. If you catch me out I will shift my ground. If you care, I
will tease you, if you don't then I accuse you. I think like God, well
he thinks like me really and we both hate the queen and Babylon, and
babble-on and babble-on.
I am Hamm,
I am Hamm,
Can you hear me, here I am.
I love you, do you love me?
If you do then set me free.
I am Hamm,
I am Hamm,
Can you hear me here I am.
I'm lonely!........I want you all to love me........I want to be
somebody!
Oh dear, time to turn off the mincer, we're down to the bone.
Cruel, but not without a point: Hamm you have considerable talent, but
you are misusing it.
Martin
Martin Anderson
My poetry sucks! Why you, grrrrr, grrrr, grrrr.
Doesn't connect, eh.............
Well try this for size:
A fiery young buck, name of Hamm,
Said "To change the world's myths is my plan."
Of a new Babylon,
He would oft babble on,
'Til our poor mixed up Hamm turned to Spam.
Oh well, even Shakespeare must have started somewhere.
Martin :-)
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010202132356...@nso-mp.aol.com...
Bruce
<lby...@home.com> wrote:
You petty asshole, those are ALL observations of your demonstrated
hostility, and misdirection. Which you continue to pour out of your
cup upon me. You have NO right to talk to me that way, and still
consider yourself a child of GO(o)Dness.
Get a life dude, fill it with GOD, not these petty complaints.
I'm through here, I'm not getting anywhere anyways. I'll leave
Ya'll in Martins capable hands. He's not afraid to whack you
with the same sword you all shovel your shit with.
Me personally, I fear GOD, which is the only reason I don't
draw a sword on you and cut your meely mouth to pieces.
This conference is a dead end, YOU "moonies" are just
becoming more stoic with every word of truth that YOU deny.
I've got more important things to do. Like try to figure out
how to connect my "Home Church" to GOD without the
"rejection" by the UCM. I've got over a half a dozen people
here waiting for the Messiah, and I don't know how to tell
them the "moonies" won't let you past the front door.
So here I sit with my small but growing congregation
and nothing to give them but hope, cause Ya'll simply refuse
to discuss anything openly and honestly with anybody.
Instead you wanna cram it down thier throats and force them
to be just like you. Well, I know them all personally, and none
of them want to live your "white lie", or your "heavenly deception".
They are too honest, and too free to ever accept your "ridged"
uncompromising, uncommited (to thier needs) way of thinking.
Why ya'll continue to bad mouth and refuse people who do drugs
when many of YOU did them at one time or another. Can only arise
out of bigotry. YOU simply consider yourselves better than them.
YOU all simply turn your backs on people, and reject
them for the smallest of infractions, while YOU all continue to
justify your way of living AGAINST the ways of others.
Some search for UNITY huhh?
Go stick it in your ear, cause I'm not listening to your "white
lies" and nobody with any common sense is either.
Don't bother to reply, cause I won't be here..
ITL, Bruce
Moody
>Dan,
>Thanks for the back hand(ed compliment). [Moody; see what I mean about 'peer
>pressure' pushing folks toward couplehood?]
I see.
I see.
Moody
<martin.a...@virgin.net> wrote:
>A fiery young buck, name of Hamm,
>Said "To change the world's myths is my plan."
>Of a new Babylon,
>He would oft babble on,
>'Til our poor mixed up Hamm turned to Spam.
Hey, this is getting good!!!
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Oh, now you've done it Hamm,
>
>My poetry sucks! Why you, grrrrr, grrrr, grrrr.
>
>Doesn't connect, eh.............
>
>Well try this for size:
>
>A fiery young buck, name of Hamm,
>Said "To change the world's myths is my plan."
>Of a new Babylon,
>He would oft babble on,
>'Til our poor mixed up Hamm turned to Spam.
>
>
>Oh well, even Shakespeare must have started somewhere.
>
>Martin :-)
>
>
Martin,
Thank you for saving me the effort of proving that your poetry sucks.....
Hammond
Your 'mincer' is more like a 'massager'. Let me ask you; have you tried to
think like God? (I don't mean: 'do you think you're God?') Give it a
try--look at nature as though it were a painting and see if you can figure out
what God was thinking about when S/He created the natural world. Go ahead; try
it. You can even try this at home.
Why are you asking me if thinking like God clears up any mysteries? You should
be asking that question to yourself, not to me. Try it out; do your own
research. And then ask yourself if thinking like God is a concept which exists
only in your head, and has no practical meaning or relevance.
Martinworld looks like a very messed up place to me. I'd have abandon all hope
to enter there.
Now what would make you think that Socrates, Plato, and Jesus would turn their
backs on my thinking when you don't seem to know how they think? You seem to
want to blindly hurl insults in my direction. Could it be I'm fair game
because I'm an associate of SMM?
Haven't you already made a half-baked evaluation of SMM and concluded that he's
crazy; and therefore anyone associated with him must be crazy too? Are you
aware of this bias? Do you think it might color your opinion?
And I'm shocked that you think anyone in England looks up to Plato; you
certainly don't, and neither does the Queen.
I'm sure you understood that. Here's something else I'm sure you can
understand: it's difficult to arrange words to create meaning when the reader
denys that the words have a meaning. Ya know what I mean?
Let me ask you this question, (I figure turnabout is fair play, and since you
know how I determine meaningfulness--via the DP); how do you determine what has
meaning?
Oh you flatterer--what am I to think? You say I don't produce regular
bullshit, but 'classic' bullshit; you compulsively read my words; you snatch
understanding from my jumble; you write (bad) poems about me....And yet you say
you haven't got a clue to what I'm talking about. How should I take this?
What have I done to deserve this attention? Could it have been my crack about
the Neanders and the Cromags?
So you're in the process of developing your worldview; this doesn't explain why
you're so willing to trash my worldview when you don't have one of your own
yet. That's not a nice thing to try. And let's not begin talking about
'chicanery' and false pretenses--those are the things which brought us to this
intersection.
Excuuuuse me for irritating you, but do I need to remind you that your initial
proposal (that members share our testimonies) was met with skepticism, and for
good reason. From the start there was larceny in your heart. But let's not go
there. Although I do admit that I will deliberately bait someone, when I think
it's warranted.
JHammR
--------
In article <IlIe6.8662$LQ2.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
Terriallen
>
>"I think that it would do all current members a power of good to
>analyse their individual conversion experiences with a view to either
>acknowledging or dismissing the possibility that a very special
>atmosphere was created for them by the group who was influencing them
>at the time of conversion.
stay. Let's say you weren't coming from a cozy family and your world view was
a little gappy or nonexistent. When you encounter the church, with it's warm,
friendly attentive people, and you hear a view point that seems more air tight
than your own well, that's enough. That's all you need to stay initially,
maybe even for a couple years. And after a couple years you're afraid to
leave, afraid leaving would ruin you, afraid that communism will run rampant or
God will kill you or your children will be deformed or snatched from you.
Really. I don't think conversion was necessary. What was necessary was
anxiety. Big anxiety.
TerryJ....
Terriallen
I knew you were needing some warm fuzzies, after making yourself so vulnerable
with you're poetry and all.
TerryJ...
Hammond
(Terriallen) writes:
What the hell.....?!!?
That wasn't poetry!!
He hasn't made himself vulnerable!!
Why does he get the women?!!!
JHR
Hammond
writes:
Moody,
I have to admit that part of it was 'good';
Martin accurately depicted my plan.
But I often babble on about the old Babylon
With no interest in a new Babylon.
It's to ensure that Babylon doesn't rise again,
That I plan to change the world's myths.
And I know I can't do it by myself.
He misses these points, and gives no hope.
JHammR
Hammond
<bru...@cstone.net> writes:
>
> I've got more important things to do. Like try to figure out
>how to connect my "Home Church" to GOD without the
>"rejection" by the UCM. I've got over a half a dozen people
>here waiting for the Messiah, and I don't know how to tell
>them the "moonies" won't let you past the front door.
>
> So here I sit with my small but growing congregation
>and nothing to give them but hope, cause Ya'll simply refuse
>to discuss anything openly and honestly with anybody.
>Instead you wanna cram it down thier throats and force them
>to be just like you. Well, I know them all personally, and none
>of them want to live your "white lie", or your "heavenly deception".
>They are too honest, and too free to ever accept your "ridged"
>uncompromising, uncommited (to thier needs) way of thinking.
>
Bruce,
Congratulations and Good Luck!
You've got your work cut out for you. Isn't it obvious that God needs you to
raise up those folks around you. You've been through the drill; you teach them
what they need to know. (Don't expect anyone to do it for you--they're your
people. They look to you. You're in charge. You offer them to God.) And
quit whining--it makes the young ones nervous. Again, good luck and
Congratulations.
Craig Maxim
"Dan Fefferman" <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010202143926...@ng-ma1.aol.com...
Moody
> And after a couple years you're afraid to
>leave, afraid leaving would ruin you, afraid that communism will run rampant or
>God will kill you or your children will be deformed or snatched from you.
>Really. I don't think conversion was necessary. What was necessary was
>anxiety. Big anxiety.
Great Sun!!! Does this really happen? How sick is that?
A 'church' run on fear.
Unbelievable...
moody
Moody
> Let me ask you; have you tried to
>think like God? (I don't mean: 'do you think you're God?') Give it a
>try--look at nature as though it were a painting and see if you can figure out
>what God was thinking about when S/He created the natural world.
What WAS he thinking with the platypus?????
Must have had a bad hair day, eh?
moody
Martin Anderson
I sense your frustration at the contradictions and outright hypocrisy
you seem to be detecting within the movement, but you really should
not let it drive you from this forum.
Alongside the name calling and pettiness you mention there is also a
serious search for truth and I will try to see to it that there is
also some humour.
Now you have been very tough on Eric here and that is not worthy of
you. Eric has serious problems, and with this in mind, you should be
more understanding of his behaviour.
We ascertained some months ago that Eric suffers from Tourettes
Syndrome, one of the manifestations of which is an uncontrollable
compulsion to yelp epithets at people. You must not therefore judge
him harshly when you see him do it, he cannot help himself.
More recently, I submitted some of his outpourings to the educational
psychologists at Tresham Institute, where I work. The news is grim:
It would appear that Eric has now deteriorated into a rare condition
called "Inverse Doogie Howser Disorder" in which middle aged doctors
feel compelled to behave like petulant teenagers.
Apparently it is named after some American TV series, but I am not so
familiar with your culture so perhaps someone "your side of the pond"
will have more idea what this is all about.
Cheer up Bruce, and don't be so hard on yourselves if you don't know
the way forward. None of members do. None of them really understand
DP. The simple reason for this is that it does not make sense.
Martin
Bruce <bru...@cstone.net> wrote in message
news:c8fm7tktedurhpger...@4ax.com...
Martin Anderson
expressed much with few words. I have encompassed your entire
existence on this group in one 5 line verse of great intricacy.
The form is that of a classical limerick and the only "stretch" of the
rhyme is Hamm/plan/spam, which is still pretty bloody close.
Within this compact format is the humorous juxtaposition of "Babylon"
and "babble-on", as well as the play on words demonstrated by taking
the literal and secondary meanings of both ham and Spam to
simultaneous jocular climax.
Here in Britain Spam was(is?) a processed meat made of ham(m) and you
had just been through Martin's Mincer.
It can also be read that in your postings you have "Turned to Spam".
Hamm it was bloody brilliant and you know it !
In all humility ;-)
Martin
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010203022058...@nso-bd.aol.com...
Martin Anderson
Thanks for the thought, but I'm afraid Hamm is correct here. That was
not the sort of poetry that would make me vulnerable.
There is in fact very little that would.
Let me explain. When I was 4 years old I went to school, not
kindergarten but full all-day school. That is the age we start here. I
grew up in a "Steeltown" which was a new town built soon after the war
around a huge steelworks to provide jobs and cheap housing for
returning servicemen, displaced persons from Europe and those from our
own bombed-out cities.
It was a tough place, mainly filled with Glaswegians (scots from
Glasgow) from the slum clearances. With a rapidly growing family (that
grew to 12 children) we were pretty much dirt poor and our German
mother thought that it would be practical and cute to send us to
school in "lederhosen".
Do you know the song "A Man Called Sue"?
Have you ever noticed that Damian can be one ornery SOB.
Thanks anyway,
Martin
BTW Hammond, regarding the "Why does he get the women?", you have to
make them laugh, the odd compliment does wonders and whatever you do,
don't start talking weird stuff, it "creeps them out". Terri will no
doubt correct me if I'm wrong.
Forget SMM & DP, this is the "real deal".
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010203141137...@nso-fj.aol.com...
Martin Anderson
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010203022057...@nso-bd.aol.com...
> Martin,
> Your 'mincer' is more like a 'massager'. Let me ask you; have you
tried to
> think like God? (I don't mean: 'do you think you're God?') Give it
a
> try--look at nature as though it were a painting and see if you can
figure out
> what God was thinking about when S/He created the natural world. Go
ahead; try
> it. You can even try this at home.
OK, here
goes..................................................................
...............................................Oh, Ow, whats that?
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh....
NOW HEAR ME WELL HAMMOND, SON OF HAMMOND'S DAD WHO WAS BEGAT BY HIS
GRANDFATHER.................OH TO HELL WITH THAT CRAP, BUT THE JEWS
ALWAYS INSIST ON IT.
BACK TO THE POINT, HEAR ME WELL HAMMOND.....I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THE
GOD OF ABRAHAM AND OF ISAAC AND OF JUDAH. BEFORE ALL WAS, I AM. I AM
THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA AND ALL THAT JAZZ.
NOW LISTEN UP BOY, THOU HAST BEEN GOING ABOUT PRETENDING TO KNOWLEDGE
WHICH IS NOT THINE, AND I AM MIGHTILY DISPLEASED. WERE IT NOT FOR THE
SMOG OVER KANSAS I WOULD GET A BEAD ON THEE AND SMITE THY SORRY ASS.
BE CAREFUL TO THAT WHICH THOU DOST ASPIRE, FOR THY PLAYING THE
ECCENTRIC GRATETH UPON MINE NERVES SO, THAT I WILL CAST ONE OF THY
TESTICLES INTO THE PIT THAT THOU MIGHT RIGHTLY BE CALLED "ODDBALL".
THOU ART NAUGHT BUT A JIVE-ASS MUTHA'.
SPEAK NOW ONLY OF THAT WHICH THOU KNOWEST OR VERILY I WILL VISIT A
PLAGUE OF BLISTERS UPON THY MANHOOD, WORSE THAN THOU HAST ALREADY WITH
THINE INCESSANT NOCTURNAL FUMBLINGS.
NOW HEARKEN UP,
THIS IS MINE OWN SCRIBE IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED, HEARKEN UNTO HIS
WORDS.
Aaaaahhhhhhh, Oh my head! What happened?.....................
Bloody hell Hammond, is this what always happens when you try to think
like God. I think I got a direct connection there somehow. You better
tell the boss. I'm a channellin' man. Move over Cleophas, I'm a-comin'
to whup yo' ass with a baseball bat. (for providential reasons of
course.)
>
> Why are you asking me if thinking like God clears up any mysteries?
You should
> be asking that question to yourself, not to me. Try it out; do your
own
> research. And then ask yourself if thinking like God is a concept
which exists
> only in your head, and has no practical meaning or relevance.
No shit !
>
> Martinworld looks like a very messed up place to me. I'd have
abandon all hope
> to enter there.
>
> Now what would make you think that Socrates, Plato, and Jesus would
turn their
> backs on my thinking when you don't seem to know how they think?
You seem to
> want to blindly hurl insults in my direction. Could it be I'm fair
game
> because I'm an associate of SMM?
No, because you are a pain in the butt. There are those people here
who are trying to look into a deep pool of thoughts and experiences to
see what is at the bottom of it all. You go around throwing stones in,
while Eric seems determined to stir up the mud with a stick.
> Haven't you already made a half-baked evaluation of SMM and
concluded that he's
> crazy; and therefore anyone associated with him must be crazy too?
Are you
> aware of this bias? Do you think it might color your opinion?
Yes I am aware of this bias and however warranted my conclusion may
be. I am trying to correct it and treat the people here according to
how they behave, rather than which faction they represent. You still
come out badly though, because you are just here to demonstrate how
clever you are. Unfortunately for you, you have succeeded.
> And I'm shocked that you think anyone in England looks up to Plato;
you
> certainly don't, and neither does the Queen.
Hammond, Plato has beeen held in high regard in this country since
before yours was founded. I can see a copy of "The Theory of Education
in Plato's Republic" on a shelf above my computer. I have a copy of
"Republic" somewhere too as well as works by Aristotle and others.
Some of them I have even read :-)
Please don't embarass yourself with your parochial notions of Britain,
it's people, it's government and it's myths. We have a democracy here
while you are ruled by King George of the House of Bush.
Look at how long it has been since a father and a son both governed
Britain and tell me who has a "Royal Family" with real power.
> I'm sure you understood that. Here's something else I'm sure you
can
> understand: it's difficult to arrange words to create meaning when
the reader
> denys that the words have a meaning. Ya know what I mean?
>
> Let me ask you this question, (I figure turnabout is fair play, and
since you
> know how I determine meaningfulness--via the DP); how do you
determine what has
> meaning?
I think about things a lot.
> Oh you flatterer--what am I to think? You say I don't produce
regular
> bullshit, but 'classic' bullshit; you compulsively read my words;
you snatch
> understanding from my jumble; you write (bad) poems about me....And
yet you say
> you haven't got a clue to what I'm talking about. How should I take
this?
> What have I done to deserve this attention? Could it have been my
crack about
> the Neanders and the Cromags?
No. I have been watching you pretend to understand the DP here on
this group for months and gradually gain confidence in "snowing"
people. I wanted to bring you down to earth anyway and then you tried
your nonsense on me.
> So you're in the process of developing your worldview; this doesn't
explain why
> you're so willing to trash my worldview when you don't have one of
your own
> yet. That's not a nice thing to try. And let's not begin talking
about
> 'chicanery' and false pretenses--those are the things which brought
us to this
> intersection.
I trash yours because you don't even believe it yourself. You are
constantly "flying a kite" to see what kind of BS you can tack onto DP
to make yourself unique. Possibly to claim to have taken DP further.
> Excuuuuse me for irritating you, but do I need to remind you that
your initial
> proposal (that members share our testimonies) was met with
skepticism, and for
> good reason. From the start there was larceny in your heart. But
let's not go
> there. Although I do admit that I will deliberately bait someone,
when I think
> it's warranted.
This has little to do with your testimony, although even that looked
like it was a Hamm "I'm so eccentric" fabrication.
If I am not mistaken, you uttered some vague threat to me:
QUOTE: "You are meant to understand every word I write; after all, you
asked and I'm responding. I get more than annoyed when I detect
deliberate misdirection. But I'm so good-natured that I'll kick a liar
in the balls rather than give them what they really deserve. (But we
can discuss your motives for promoting this 'sharing of beliefs' at
another time.)"
.......and when confronted to give me what I really deserve, you shit
your pants.
You do indeed bait people. It is possible that you are trying to do so
here, in which case I hope you can hold the fish you've caught.
You infer that I am a liar and threaten me, then you whimper that you
are being attacked.
You are indeed a master-baiter!
Martin
Terriallen
>> And after a couple years you're afraid to>leave, afraid leaving would ruin
you, afraid that communism will run rampant or>God will kill you or your
children will be deformed or snatched from you. >Really. I don't think
conversion was necessary. What was necessary was
>>anxiety. Big anxiety.
Moody:
> Great Sun!!! Does this really happen? How sick is that?
A 'church' run on fear.
>
>Unbelievable...
Moody, were you a church member? I mean, you couldn't have been, cause
nobody that was there would call that unbelievable. Church members were
responsible for EVERYTHING. Everything good was our doing. Everything bad was
our fault, (cause we didn't do enough. ) It was enough to drive you crazy.
TerryJ....
Moody
> Moody, were you a church member? I mean, you couldn't have been, cause
>nobody that was there would call that unbelievable. Church members were
>responsible for EVERYTHING. Everything good was our doing. Everything bad was
>our fault, (cause we didn't do enough. ) It was enough to drive you crazy.
Uh........no. In a past post I recalled being approched and
told the 'recruiter' to get lost. I had a mind of my own and didn't
need anybody to 'save me'.
Had a few more encounters......same thing. Nope, never fell
for it.
moody.
Moody
<martin.a...@virgin.net> wrote:
>OK, here
>goes..................................................................
>...............................................Oh, Ow, whats that?
>Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh....
Martin, I love you!
moody.....in the presence of greatness
Hammond
writes:
>>Really. I don't think conversion was necessary. What was necessary was
>>anxiety. Big anxiety.
>
>
> Great Sun!!! Does this really happen? How sick is that?
>
> A 'church' run on fear.
>
>Unbelievable...
>
>moody
>
You are so funny.
Hammond
writes:
>
>> Let me ask you; have you tried to
>>think like God? (I don't mean: 'do you think you're God?') Give it a
>>try--look at nature as though it were a painting and see if you can figure
>out
>>what God was thinking about when S/He created the natural world.
>
> What WAS he thinking with the platypus?????
>
Must of had some leftover parts....
Hammond
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>BTW Hammond, regarding the "Why does he get the women?", you have to
>make them laugh, the odd compliment does wonders and whatever you do,
>don't start talking weird stuff, it "creeps them out". Terri will no
>doubt correct me if I'm wrong.
>Forget SMM & DP, this is the "real deal".
>
Martin,
I recognize good advice when I see it.
Thanks
JHammR
Hammond
I can't complain about your technical achievement;
It was sterling but it didn't capture my heart;
Not my heart in terms of love,
But my heart in terms of essence.
You were on the mark with my plan,
And you revealed something I myself ignored,
In the quest for Heaven on Earth.
Imagine my mirth when I saw myself reflected,
In a handful of words:
"To change the world's myths is my plan."
This secret content was invisible--
Unseen even by me;
Imagine the shock--
Seeing a hidden secret exposed
For the world to see!
Now, that's a poem......
JHammR
--
In article <Somf6.16882$LQ2.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Hammond
Pay attention; I said 'think like God', not 'think you're God'. No wonder you
got a headache. First you think you're God; then you call me an e-hole. Then
you wonder where the ripples are coming from.....You must approach a still pond
with a pure heart or all you'll see is wrinkles and clouds.
If you're aware of your bias, and you want to change your response to folks,
then work on straightening out your attitude. It's like a spotlight shining
from behind your words; your words are almost as transparent as Bill's.
And now you try to impress people by dropping the names of folks that others
look up to.....Aristotilians sneer at Platonists more intensely than realists
sneer at idealists. (You aren't going to try and tell me that England is a
Platonic republic are you?) I don't have parochial notions about Britain;
although I do have a few catholic notions which have held true over the
centuries; supported by evidence of real bad behavior which did a lot of damage
to a lot of people. So don't try to blind me with shame over an event which
you claim is not politically kosher. I already know you don't know what you're
talking about. You'd benefit more by thinking a lot about what living under a
monarch can do to an entire population over a long period of time. And while
you're at it, think a lot about these words: 'you don't know me,' (you haven't
been watching long enough--you came in on the middle of act 2 and think you
know what's going on). How typically British.
And now you're trying to pick a fight with me, you you soccer hooligan! You're
the one who concluded that it was you I was refering to; it was you who implied
that you were lying; and it was you who concluded I would treat you in such a
horrible manner. I would treat any liar the way I described--I run into them a
lot around here; always trying to get into the building; saying they're
visiting their dear cousin who lives in an apartment that's been vacant for 6
months.....while they point to the wrong side of the building. Such folks,
when I catch them in the lie, turn me into a verbally-abusive gorilla. If I
caught you lying to me, I'd treat you the same way....you aren't lying about
your motivations are you?
JHammR
--
In article <Pomf6.16881$LQ2.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
Terriallen
> Uh........no. In a past post I recalled being approched and
>told the 'recruiter' to get lost.
I'm sorry I missed your post Moody. I skip some threads. Things get busy round
here.
I had a mind of my own and didn't
>need anybody to 'save me'.
Excellent decision. It sounds so simple. Now why couldn't I have done that?
I had a mind of my own. I just wasn't using it..
You must realize that you're probably a blessed member of the Unification
Church in good standing without even realizing it. You have been claimed...
Reverend Moon boldy stood on an icy pinnacle in Alaska and claimed the whole
world. I wouldn't be surprised if you've been slipped a litte holy wine at
some point and if you've maintained a monogomous relationship with a cheerful
attitude for any length of time... well, your a moonie by new and improved
standards. Welcome to the fold. Natural disasters, assasinations, super bowl
wins, the toppling of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of Reverend Moon's
family... all a result of your good and bad doings. Are ya crazy yet? Give it
a week or two.
TerryJ.....
Moody
>You must realize that you're probably a blessed member of the Unification
>Church in good standing without even realizing it.
Ah, but I'm NOT married...kinda leaves me out of the whole
thing according to Ed.
> well, your a moonie by new and improved
>standards. Welcome to the fold. Natural disasters, assasinations, super bowl
>wins, the toppling of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of Reverend Moon's
>family... all a result of your good and bad doings. Are ya crazy yet? Give it
>a week or two.
You know.........I have thought about this. And Moon surely
believes it, but I do not. Faith must come into the picture
somewhere, it just ain't there.
moody..who can be crazy without Moon's help..;)
Moody
>You are so funny.
>"Aggressive parental love (Agape) unifies the Cosmos into one inseparable
>family of God."
Maybe so......but really thinking about it........in reality,
most churches are, yes?
moody
Craig Maxim
"Terriallen" <terri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010204222452...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
>Church members were
> responsible for EVERYTHING. Everything good was our doing. Everything
bad was
> our fault, (cause we didn't do enough. ) It was enough to drive you crazy.
>
> TerryJ....
You probably mean that everything good was "Moon's doing" and everything bad
was the member's fault. Moon always claims that he is the one responsible
for the good, and the member's responsible for the mistakes.
(บท.ธ(จ*ท.ธ ธ.ท*จ)ธ.ทบ)
ซ.ทฐท . Truth Liberates .ทฐท.ป
(ธ.ทบ(ธ.ทจ* *จท.ธ)บท.ธ)
Dan Fefferman
That's how they talk in Kansas City
Dan
Dan Fefferman
My own initial leap of faith into the UC seemed only a small one... I was ripe
for it, there was no deception in the recruiting process, and the lectures
were one on one with no love bombing. Well.. the people were very nice and all,
but I was much more attracted to he teaching than the people.
However, I think that the "leap of faith" is not made just once in one's life,
but many times. In a sense it is made daily as one confronts the reality of
life and relates it to Ultimate Reality. At least that's how I read
Keirkegaard, who coined the term. My faith in the UC and Rev Moon today is very
different from when I first joined.
Dan Fefferman
protagoras
feff...@aol.com (Dan Fefferman) wrote:
> Matin A:
>
> However, I think that the "leap of faith" is not made just once in
one's life,
At least that's how I read
> Keirkegaard, who coined the term.
>
> Dan Fefferman
Could you find the reference?
Kind of expression I must have heard years ago, forgot, and think I
invent as they come naturally under my pen.
Federico
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
protagoras
protagoras
>
> OK, here
> goes..................................................................
> ...............................................Oh, Ow, whats that?
> Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh....
>
> NOW HEAR ME WELL HAMMOND, SON OF HAMMOND'S DAD WHO WAS BEGAT BY HIS
> GRANDFATHER.................
Martin, I love you too.
I've stopped watching TV.
No.6
> wins, the toppling of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of Reverend Moon's
> family... all a result of your good and bad doings. Are ya crazy yet? Give it
> a week or two.
Terry's on the mark here - among us "cain" types (read - sensible) it
was something of a joke. I recall when we got news of Moon's son getting
killed in the auto accident me & another cain immediately looked at each
other & said, "Well, we're in for it now! Wonder what 'we' did wrong
NOW??" And we fully expected to soon be at Belvedere getting creamed
with what lousy, sinful people us UC'rs were to cause this sacrifice and
what disagreeable "missions" we'd be mobilized for to make up for it.
Actually, it wasn't too bad in our neck of the UC woods - just the usual
gas, our repentance & prayerful attitude, and that was pretty much it.
You might ask, well then, what the hell DID we believe in?
Well, the major points of DP, the mission of Messiahship (Moon or
whomever), and God; he could still work though the UC was shaky in the
sanity/logic dept., and The Rev was a bull in a china shop.
(I didn't join 'cause I was a Rhodes scholar, you know.)
No.6
that!
Martin Anderson
really a traditionalist at heart. I like it to scan and to rhyme, but
is not without merit.
Interesting that I have discerned a truth which you yourself had
ignored. How does this tie up with the earlier opinion that I was
taking your words one by one, but not discerning the meaning.
Is it not the case that in this I have actually looked a level below
that on which you thought you were communicating?
If I am "on the money" on this, what makes you think that I am so far
off the mark on other matters. is it possible that you harbour yet
more unrealised motives.................
Worth some thought......
I'm glad you experienced mirth, if you can laugh at yourself then you
are probably OK.
Martin
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010205030323...@nso-bk.aol.com...
Martin Anderson
I hope I cheered you up for a while at least. Sorry to inform that the
only greatness about me is the size of my head after such a
compliment. I will now have to wait for it to subside before I can get
through the door and go to bed :-)
Martin
Moody <meta...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3a7e3652...@news1.telebyte.com...
Martin Anderson
You make a very good point here. In every religion the faithful report
temptations and crises of faith. I suspect the more sincere the
seeker, the more extreme is the internal turmoil.
You seem very sincere. How have you weathered the seemingly endless
cycle of promise and disappointment that appears to characterise UC
membership.
I remember grandiloquent claims as far back as 1977, but have yet to
hear in mainstream news that anything of the scale imagined has
occurred.
How do you cope with such a consistent pattern of failure, or do you
not see it as such?
Why should you lower your expectations of Rev Moon or accept that he
might not deliver on some promises?
If you had your life over, would you join again?
Sincerely,
Martin
Dan Fefferman <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010205131538...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
Martin Anderson
Even if I believed Plato or aristotle to the exclusion of the other,
why would this disbar me from having read both in coming to my
decision.
When you decided to believe DP, did this mean that you no longer red
anything that might disagree with it.
This is a very illuminationg criticism which you have made.
There is much more I could say to your reply, but I feel there is no
purpose to be gained in further conflict.
To attempt to comply seriously with your request that I "think like
God", do you not feel that there are rather a lot of assumptions that
I would need to make to do what you ask?
I am not sure that there is a God, but if I were requested to assume
that there was, how should I start to discern the nature, or thoughts,
of a being of which I have no experience?
Martin
Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010205030322...@nso-bk.aol.com...
Eric B. Richardson
Just so.
--
When someone is invaded by Satan, he loses all spiritual support
and inspiration. Trust in God, as well as a sense of gratitude
to Him, is lost. One begins to see everything through human eyes.
Eric B. Richardson
<protag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
If you thought you invented it, then you mustn't have see the movie...
Dan Fefferman
>How do you cope with such a consistent pattern of failure, or do you
>not see it as such?
I decided early on in my UC life (about 1970) that the UC was not immune to
the laws of the sociology of religion outlined by Max Weber. THe central idea
is the "institutionalization of charisma" which affects any new religion. So
some things that others see as failures (such as bureacracies replacing the
early communal lifestyle, or the evolution of required tithes and offerings) I
see as unfortunate inevitabilties. We'd have to talk about specifics though,
this is very general.
>Why should you lower your expectations of Rev Moon or accept that he
>might not deliver on some promises?
Again we need to talk specifically. I've always thought of him as a human
being, and I never ascribed to a doctrine of "messianic infallibility." Dont'
forget that I'm a jew, and one of the reasons I liked the UC was that it
emphasized Jesus' human side. Perhpas those who saw SMM as a demigod were more
prone to being disillusioned.
>If you had your life over, would you join again?
Depends on how many go-arounds you give me. Just one? Well, I know at least I
would do some things differently. But how can I say I would have chosen to not
bring my daughters into this world, unique persons who would have been
impossible without my joining the UC...? I think DP is absolutely right when it
says that love would not allow God to wipe out his first children and start all
over again.
But sometimes I think reincarnation might be a very good thing. That way I
could come back next time and fulfill my destiny as a rock musician.
Dan Fefferman
Dan Fefferman
Søren Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism. the following
is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu
Although the words "leap of faith" don't appear, I can assure you Keikegaard is
the one to whom the are ascribed.
danf
_____
For Kierkegaard Christian faith is not a matter of regurgitating church dogma.
It is a matter of individual subjective passion, which cannot be mediated by
the clergy or by human artefacts. Faith is the most important task to be
achieved by a human being, because only on the basis of faith does an
individual have a chance to become a true self. This self is the life-work
which God judges for eternity.
The individual is thereby subject to an enormous burden of responsibility, for
upon h/er existential choices hangs h/er eternal salvation or damnation.
Anxiety or dread (Angest) is the presentiment of this terrible responsibility
when the individual stands at the threshold of momentous existential choice.
Anxiety is a two-sided emotion: on one side is the dread burden of choosing for
eternity; on the other side is the exhilaration of freedom in choosing oneself.
Choice occurs in the instant (Øjeblikket), which is the point at which time
and eternity intersect -- for the individual creates through temporal choice a
self which will be judged for eternity.
But the choice of faith is not made once and for all. It is essential that
faith be constantly renewed by means of repeated avowals of faith. One’s very
selfhood depends upon this repetition...
Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are
offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal,
infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal,
finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to
this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot
do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose
faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than
reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd. [this is the central
leap of faith for christians..dgf]
...Kierkegaard’s notion of the absurd subsequently became an important
category for twentieth century existentialists, though usually devoid of its
religious associations.
Dan Fefferman
out for me, so I figure protagoras may have missed it too. he said
>>Could you find the reference?
I answered
protagoras
I knew the notion had something to do with the philosopher, but I would
have liked to find the reference.
Thanks all the same
Federico
In article <20010205235159...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
Martin Anderson
Thanks for taking the time to reply again.
Dan Fefferman <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010205233147...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> Martin Anderson
>
> >How do you cope with such a consistent pattern of failure, or do
you
> >not see it as such?
>
> I decided early on in my UC life (about 1970) that the UC was not
immune to
> the laws of the sociology of religion outlined by Max Weber. THe
central idea
> is the "institutionalization of charisma" which affects any new
religion. So
> some things that others see as failures (such as bureacracies
replacing the
> early communal lifestyle, or the evolution of required tithes and
offerings) I
> see as unfortunate inevitabilties. We'd have to talk about specifics
though,
> this is very general.
I'm afraid that I am not quite so highbrow. Some of the most revealing
(and funniest) insights into the problems surrounding a messiah figure
must be contained in Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
But down to specifics. I have read many of Moon's speeches in which he
speaks of regular and intimate contact with a spirit world. He is also
apt to imply his own greatness and status as a great prophet,
exceeding even Jesus in his accomplishments.
As chance would have it we have running simultaneously on this group,
a discussion over the actions of Cleophas in your church. By both your
and Damian's accounts it would appear that this man was a violent and
sadistic con-man who had been accepted by Rev Moon as the physical
reincarnation of his dead son Heung Jin Nim in the body of a black
African man from Zimbabwe.
This would stretch the credulity of any man such that he would be
unlikely to believe it unless he were exceptionally gullible or
foolish or both. For a man who claims mastery of the "spirit world"
from whence Heung Jin's essence presumably returned, we must consider
other possibilities.
My logic leads me to only one possible conclusion which is that Moon
is a liar, that he has no more contact with a "spirit world" than you
or I and that he is furthermore either a gullible fool or a heartless
monster to have unleashed a beast like Cleophas upon his loyal
followers out of hopeful mourning or
malicious design.
How say you to this specific instance Mr Fefferman? Does this not
constitute a failure of care, which in most commercial organisations
would lead to serious legal repercussions on the senior executive who
had personally sanctioned such nonsense?
>
> >Why should you lower your expectations of Rev Moon or accept that
he
> >might not deliver on some promises?
>
> Again we need to talk specifically. I've always thought of him as a
human
> being, and I never ascribed to a doctrine of "messianic
infallibility." Dont'
> forget that I'm a jew, and one of the reasons I liked the UC was
that it
> emphasized Jesus' human side. Perhaps those who saw SMM as a demigod
were more
> prone to being disillusioned.
Don't you even expect him to be as good or honest as your average Joe
in the street? Regarding delivery on specific promises I will hope
that ex-members who are reading this will help me with this question.
My memories of specifics in this regard are hazy due to the sheer
volume and changing nature of what was claimed.
The achievements seem normally to be claimed in retrospect of events
in which Moon's hand was hardly evident if at all.
>
> >If you had your life over, would you join again?
>
> Depends on how many go-arounds you give me. Just one? Well, I know
at least I
> would do some things differently. But how can I say I would have
chosen to not
> bring my daughters into this world, unique persons who would have
been
> impossible without my joining the UC...? I think DP is absolutely
right when it
> says that love would not allow God to wipe out his first children
and start all
> over again.
>
> But sometimes I think reincarnation might be a very good thing.
That way I
> could come back next time and fulfill my destiny as a rock musician.
>
> Dan Fefferman
>
Yes, just one go-around, but you get to keep the daughters.
What you say is revealing by what you omit to say. Please remember
that you are a man who commands some respect Dan. This is a great
compliment to you from those who accord you such regard, but it places
an onus of moral responsibility upon your shoulders in excess of that
on an ordinary man. Your life, decisions and mistakes are no longer
only your own because you have the power to set an example.
If you see a light and keep it to yourself, for whatever reason, you
are failing those people who look to you for leadership. This goes for
my brother Damian as well.
Saul of Tarsus was a greater man than any rock musician. Why do you
set your sights so low?
Martin
Craig Maxim
"Clover" <cero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sn7g6.19336$Ee3.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> LOL...........sounds just like the Martin I know and love :)
>
> Craig Maxim <craig...@rabun.net> wrote in message
Hi Clover, welcome back! This was actually Dan Fefferman's limerick, I just
helped him organize it a little better. I've been thinking of making a go at
one myself, but Martin definitely seems to be the most adept so far, than
any of the rest of us! And what about you? Surely Martin is not the only one
in the family blessed with this talent? :¬)
By the way, how's the "mum"? We miss her too!
(º·.¸(¨*·.¸ ¸.·*¨)¸.·º)
«.·°· . Truth Liberates .·°·.»
(¸.·º(¸.·¨* *¨·.¸)º·.¸)
> > There was a young fellow named Martin
> > Who sought fun in stabbin' and dartin'
> > To see what he could do
> > He joined ARU
> > But still was just belchin' and fartin'
> >
> >
> > ;¬)
Dan Fefferman
>the second line, as it became anticlimactic after that. You need some
>lessons from Martin still, I think.
>
i figure god put us all on this earth to learn from each other. and you are
right, it's better the way you arranged it.
dan
Craig Maxim
It was a good limerick, gave "Clover" a good laugh.
Finally you accept some of my advice, but alas, its for something that
matters little in life. I'm feeling sad.
Hammond
I constantly face the possibility of encountering someone more observant that
myself, and many times I do encounter them. I like that term 'intuitive
thinking'--it has the pungent, but subtlely amusing, aroma of bullshit.
I'm very willing to contradict your big brother; but there's hardly an
opportunity to do so. We see eye to eye on just about everything except
UFOs/ETs and the depth of his heart.
I'll have to get back to you on your last question; gotta go.
JHammR
--
In article <AxYf6.2887$ts2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Hammond,
>
>I understand from your posts what is there to be understood. Despite
>all your "flannel", you cannot get around the fact that I have
>accurately discerned motives that you claim you did not know you had
>yourself.
>The rest of my comments on you must then be worthy of equal
>consideration. You must face the possibility that you have simply
>encountered a level of intuitive thinking which you yourself cannot
>match. There was no surprise to me in this.
>It would appear that you respect Damian's intelligence and reasoning
>powers, certainly you appear unwilling to contradict him.
>Ask him the name of his younger brother who used to whup him at chess.
>
>Why do you presume to teach me........ grasshopper ;-)
>
>Martin
>
>Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010206115738...@nso-fz.aol.com...
>> Martin,
>> The truth you discerned was actually a revelation; a flash of
>insight revealed
>> during a split-second in eternity. I'm fairly aware of my visible
>image--and
>> there is nothing which would allow one to predict, based on my
>appearance, what
>> I'm up to.
>>
>> Now maybe some of my words tipped you off. Although as you claim,
>you don't
>> understand them; this would account for your hasty hasty conclusion
>as
>> reflected in your 'poem'. But the flash of insight, the revelation
>you
>> received, came through grasping the big picture described by the
>words.
>> (Something inside you caught the meaning of the words, although you
>couldn't
>> consciously put your finger on the meaning. Only when you made the
>effort to
>> reach a conclusion based on all that you knew, could you find the
>words to
>> describe my thinking, which probably surprised you as much as me.)
>>
>> I don't think you were discerning a deeper level of the words; I
>think you were
>> finally beginning to understand what I was talking about.
Hammond
Your culture prevents you from even entertaining a serious investigation.
After 40 years in a 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' environment it's no wonder
that you reject the idea that there's 'more-to-reality-than-meets-the-eye'.
Of course it's a 'huge step' from acknowledging God exists to extrapolating
God's motives. That's why I acknowledged that there would be some assumptions
you'd have to accept on 'faith'--unless you were willing to put in the time to
research the assumptions. That's why I suggested that you accept the
assumption that God loves people, and loves you personally. As I said before;
your culture doesn't make having such thoughts seem feasible. You could think
about God for 40 years and still not grasp His/Her existence.
Not all non-Moonies(tm) have been exposed to the ideas in DP, and had the
opportunity to examine them. I find it irritating when folks suggest that
everybody except Moonies(tm) have examined and rejected the DP. It's
especially irritating when the suggestion comes from someone from a controlled
culture which disregards half of reality.
I will admit to partial 'deliberate nonsense'. The part about the Aristotlian
mindset was on target, I imagine; but the part about ETs being smurphs was
just poetic license--that was deliberate and nonsensical but accurate.
Obviously it was new to you.
The only reason you 'cannot reason with this sort of thing' is because your
culture has reduced everything and every experience to the bare minimum needed
for basic communication about routine activities. The British culture is as
subtle as bloody roast beef.
JHammR
--
In article <CxYf6.2888$ts2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Martin
Anderson" <martin.a...@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Hammond,
>
>There is still a huge step to be taken from a decision that there must
>be a God from the beauty and intricacy of nature to being able to
>somehow extrapolate from this the motives and thought processes of a
>putative creator.
>Do you really think that a man like myself will have reached his
>forties without possibly having mulled over these thoughts before?
>
>This is what I sometimes find so irritating. The idea that we who are
>not moonies have simply not yet considered the evidence that you have.
>That we are somehow blind and unseeking.
>
>When I attacked you before it was for the kind of apparently
>deliberate nonsense which you present here:
>> People born into Aristotle's mindset have great difficulty
>comprehending what
>> Platonists are talking about. And they are confused by stuff which
>doesn't fit
>> Aristotle's paradigm. So the ideas of 'God is within you' and 'some
>ETs are
>> smurphs/nature spirits' are considered to be totally bizarre.
>
>I cannot reason with this sort of thing.
>
>If you really are not trying to confuse, then you have a serious
>problem with seeing reality, never mind interpreting it.
>
>Go in peace Hammond, but if you come back with more of this stuff then
>I can do nothing but ignore it or mock you for your pretensions to
>understanding.
>
>Martin
>
>
>Hammond <hrob...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010206115740...@nso-fz.aol.com...
>> Martin,
>> Your culture predisposes you to favor Aristotle over Plato. And
>anything your
>> culture allows to be said about Plato will be corrupted, and
>therefore bad
>> information, which keeps you (and others) from getting full value
>from Plato's,
>> Jesus', and SMM's words. For example, when contemporary people read
>the Bible
>> they come away with the same level of confusion as his disciples.
>They can't
>> understand what the hell Jesus was talking about because both
>contemporary
>> people and the disciples were laboring under the point of view of
>Aristotle.
>> As another example: Aristotle maintained that the Earth/flesh was
>'evil' but
>> the further away one was from the Earth the more spiritual/holy they
>were.
>>
>> We see this played out in the Bible (God is above, looking down;
>Jesus returned
>> to God by going up into the sky; etc.). And we can see Aristotle's
>point of
>> view reflected in the idea that ETs are superior beings because they
>are from
>> some place very distant in relation to the Earth.
>>
>> People born into Aristotle's mindset have great difficulty
>comprehending what
>> Platonists are talking about. And they are confused by stuff which
>doesn't fit
>> Aristotle's paradigm. So the ideas of 'God is within you' and 'some
>ETs are
>> smurphs/nature spirits' are considered to be totally bizarre.
protagoras
meta...@iname.com (Moody) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:42:28 GMT, protagoras
> <protag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> Had a few more encounters......same thing. Nope, never fell
> >> for it.
> >>
> >> moody.
> >
> >What did you fall for then?
> >
> >Federico
>
> personal beliefs are then?
>
> Either way, I don't believe I 'fell' for anything, actually.
> Yes, I do indeed have a 'faith', but I don't usually call it that.
>
> Confused???
Well, yes, I am.
We're all fools here, or ex-fools (there are one or two exceptions, but
I'm not one of them). And I haven't figured out where to locate you yet.
Clover
the group.
Mum's fine thanks......still proud of her brood :)
Literary talent is present elsewhere in the family, but I think Martin has
the edge with his quick wit and ascerbic humour. Cybergran is great too,
considering it's also her second language.
They both ought to write books!
Craig Maxim <craig...@rabun.net> wrote in message
news:n8dg6.1083$jE2.1...@news.goodnet.com...
Martin Anderson
Clover <cero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sn7g6.19336$Ee3.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> LOL...........sounds just like the Martin I know and love :)
>
> Craig Maxim <craig...@rabun.net> wrote in message
>