| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"The Secretary of HomIntern" |
| Date: |
24 Jul 2005 04:11:49 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Fanatical Christianity *IS* WRONG! |
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when J.W.
wrote:
<trollish attempt to divert conversation to private email noted and
diverted>
"Zigler" wrote:
"J.W." wrote...
DanielSan wrote:
<Snip>
Are you on drugs or just high on the lord?
I love The Lord Jesus who is actually the Lord God Almighty.
Yep. High on drugs.
What has Jim ever done to you for you to accuse him of something like
this?
Why do scoffers like you always have to be so offensive?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
I'm sorry, you answered two questions with one answer.
It was appropriate for him -- Zigler -- to do so.
Are you saying that it's a valid response to falsely accuse others of
crimes when you don't like what they say?
Crimes? Condescenscion, alienation and demonisation are "crimes"? OK, I
think we should all remember that one. May come in handy.
And, with regard to what you said is your "natural defensive reaction," I
must not be as good a reader as you are. I can't see where Jim was
condescending, alienating or demonizing. Could you point those places out
to me please?
He -- Jim -- did it explicitly in a different post. Here, it was implicit.
Simple enough?
Do these characteristics - scoffing and obnoxiousness - always come
together? - or is it just your defense mechanism to fend off the
truth?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
So, you're saying that you think that a message of God's love - which is
all that Jim was talking about - constitutes condescention, alienation and
demonization? Is that really what you are saying?
In context (that of Jim's earlier conscious condescenscion, alienation, and
demonisation), yup, I believe he is saying that. Personally, even out of
context, but that may just be me.
<Snip>
I love you too, in a spiritual kind of way since we are
both children of God. He is the Father of us all, believers
and unbelievers, God loves us all.
Sorry, Jim, but I'm not homosexual. I cannot return your love.
So, I take it, then, that you didn't love your father, or
grandfather, or any other male relatives - in any sense of the word
"love." Goodness, we can't have any of that, can we?!?!
And of course, you can't love your children in any sense of the word
either, can you?
I love God,
Which means that you love yourself.
Which means that you are perishing from your own ignorance. The word
of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. (1
Corinthians 1:18.)
Do you read anything other than a collection of often arcane ramblings
written by desert nomads millennia ago and translated and rewritten
countless times? Real truth does not confine itself so...
Real truth doesn't confine itself? Well, if that's the test, then why do
you deny the truth? You ALWAYS confine yourself. Think about it.
Well, technically, all affirmations, statements, and teachings are true in
some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false
in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in
some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense, or at least
that's what my religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion says.
It could be the other way around, too.
--
_______________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Fanatical Christianity *IS* WRONG! |
24 Jul 2005 04:17:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:11:49 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ykransepop@woem.gro> wrote:
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when J.W.
wrote:
<trollish attempt to divert conversation to private email noted and
diverted>
Worse than that - it bounces. More dishonesty on his part.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Fanatical Christianity *IS* WRONG! |
24 Jul 2005 02:44:13 PM |
|
|
The Secretary of HomIntern <ykransepop@woem.gro> wrote in
news:pXIEe.26290$%K2.22791@pd7tw1no:
<Snip>
Are you on drugs or just high on the lord?
I love The Lord Jesus who is actually the Lord God Almighty.
Yep. High on drugs.
What has Jim ever done to you for you to accuse him of something
like this?
Why do scoffers like you always have to be so offensive?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
I'm sorry, you answered two questions with one answer.
It was appropriate for him -- Zigler -- to do so.
Are you saying that it's a valid response to falsely accuse others of
crimes when you don't like what they say?
Crimes? Condescenscion, alienation and demonisation are "crimes"? OK,
No, being "high on drugs" is a crime in most, if not all, States of the
Union. He claimed that Jim was "high on drugs," or can't you read?
I think we should all remember that one. May come in handy.
Yes, it will be handy to show just how poorly you read.
And, with regard to what you said is your "natural defensive
reaction," I must not be as good a reader as you are. I can't see
where Jim was condescending, alienating or demonizing. Could you
point those places out to me please?
He -- Jim -- did it explicitly in a different post. Here, it was
implicit. Simple enough?
No, it is not. Show me where. Try proving something once in a while, and
tell your friends to do the same.
Do these characteristics - scoffing and obnoxiousness - always come
together? - or is it just your defense mechanism to fend off the
truth?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
So, you're saying that you think that a message of God's love - which
is all that Jim was talking about - constitutes condescention,
alienation and demonization? Is that really what you are saying?
In context (that of Jim's earlier conscious condescenscion,
alienation, and demonisation), yup, I believe he is saying that.
Personally, even out of context, but that may just be me.
These are conclusions. I have yet to see facts that show Jim engaged in an
earlier bout of condescention, alienation and demonizaton. Show me where
he did so.
<Snip>
I love you too, in a spiritual kind of way since we are
both children of God. He is the Father of us all, believers
and unbelievers, God loves us all.
Sorry, Jim, but I'm not homosexual. I cannot return your love.
So, I take it, then, that you didn't love your father, or
grandfather, or any other male relatives - in any sense of the word
"love." Goodness, we can't have any of that, can we?!?!
And of course, you can't love your children in any sense of the
word either, can you?
I love God,
Which means that you love yourself.
Which means that you are perishing from your own ignorance. The
word of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. (1
Corinthians 1:18.)
Do you read anything other than a collection of often arcane
ramblings written by desert nomads millennia ago and translated and
rewritten countless times? Real truth does not confine itself so...
Real truth doesn't confine itself? Well, if that's the test, then
why do you deny the truth? You ALWAYS confine yourself. Think about
it.
Well, technically, all affirmations, statements, and teachings are
true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense,
true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense,
false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and
meaningless in some sense, or at least that's what my religion
disguised as a joke disguised as a religion says. It could be the
other way around, too.
That's not what I was talking about. That the prior writer dissed the
Bible because of its source shows that he employed the genetic fallacy. To
the extent you do the same, shows that you join in his fallacious
reasoning.
I was also speaking to the bigger picture - in the practice of disbelieving
anything that isn't verifiable through the senses or instrumentation. It
is a logical fallacy to claim that something doesn't exist simply because
science can't find it. Science is constantly finding new things all the
time. That doesn't mean the newly discovered items just came into being;
it only means scientists have only recently found them. So, confining
one's self to believing what one senses or measures is to confine one's
self.
That is what I was talking about.
John Wadsworth
john4250@earthlink.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Fanatical Christianity *IS* WRONG! |
26 Jul 2005 01:36:14 AM |
|
|
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when J.W.
wrote:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
<Snip>
Are you on drugs or just high on the lord?
I love The Lord Jesus who is actually the Lord God Almighty.
Yep. High on drugs.
What has Jim ever done to you for you to accuse him of something
like this?
Why do scoffers like you always have to be so offensive?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
I'm sorry, you answered two questions with one answer.
It was appropriate for him -- Zigler -- to do so.
Are you saying that it's a valid response to falsely accuse others of
crimes when you don't like what they say?
Crimes? Condescenscion, alienation and demonisation are "crimes"? OK,
No, being "high on drugs" is a crime in most, if not all, States of the
Union. He claimed that Jim was "high on drugs," or can't you read?
No it isn't illegal. *Possession* of (illegal) drugs is illegal, but that's
an entirely different thing. Being high and being in possession of drugs
are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive.
I think we should all remember that one. May come in handy.
Yes, it will be handy to show just how poorly you read.
Oh, I think not.
And, with regard to what you said is your "natural defensive
reaction," I must not be as good a reader as you are. I can't see
where Jim was condescending, alienating or demonizing. Could you
point those places out to me please?
He -- Jim -- did it explicitly in a different post. Here, it was
implicit. Simple enough?
No, it is not. Show me where. Try proving something once in a while, and
tell your friends to do the same.
It's expired off the server, as of sometime last week, and I can't be arsed
to google for something that interests you more than it does me.
Do these characteristics - scoffing and obnoxiousness - always come
together? - or is it just your defense mechanism to fend off the
truth?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
So, you're saying that you think that a message of God's love - which
is all that Jim was talking about - constitutes condescention,
alienation and demonization? Is that really what you are saying?
In context (that of Jim's earlier conscious condescenscion,
alienation, and demonisation), yup, I believe he is saying that.
Personally, even out of context, but that may just be me.
These are conclusions. I have yet to see facts that show Jim engaged in
an
earlier bout of condescention, alienation and demonizaton. Show me where
he did so.
No. Google for it yourself. It's in this set of threads -- the last two
words are what you should use.
<Snip>
I love you too, in a spiritual kind of way since we are
both children of God. He is the Father of us all, believers
and unbelievers, God loves us all.
Sorry, Jim, but I'm not homosexual. I cannot return your love.
So, I take it, then, that you didn't love your father, or
grandfather, or any other male relatives - in any sense of the word
"love." Goodness, we can't have any of that, can we?!?!
And of course, you can't love your children in any sense of the
word either, can you?
I love God,
Which means that you love yourself.
Which means that you are perishing from your own ignorance. The
word of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. (1
Corinthians 1:18.)
Do you read anything other than a collection of often arcane
ramblings written by desert nomads millennia ago and translated and
rewritten countless times? Real truth does not confine itself so...
Real truth doesn't confine itself? Well, if that's the test, then
why do you deny the truth? You ALWAYS confine yourself. Think about
it.
Well, technically, all affirmations, statements, and teachings are
true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense,
true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense,
false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and
meaningless in some sense, or at least that's what my religion
disguised as a joke disguised as a religion says. It could be the
other way around, too.
That's not what I was talking about. That the prior writer dissed the
Bible because of its source shows that he employed the genetic fallacy.
To the extent you do the same, shows that you join in his fallacious
reasoning.
What was true for a bunch of nomadic animal herders, thousands of years ago,
ain't necessarily so today. The Hebrew population of the time was much
smaller, most people didn't know how one became pregnant, and access to
such knowledge wasn't available to many.
I was also speaking to the bigger picture - in the practice of
disbelieving
anything that isn't verifiable through the senses or instrumentation. It
is a logical fallacy to claim that something doesn't exist simply because
science can't find it. Science is constantly finding new things all the
time. That doesn't mean the newly discovered items just came into being;
it only means scientists have only recently found them. So, confining
one's self to believing what one senses or measures is to confine one's
self.
That is what I was talking about.
It may be a mistake to think that things can't exist, just because they
haven't been scientifically verified, but it's a bigger one to insist that
they must, when they not only haven't been, but can't be, verified. Your
god may or may not exist, but if he does, you may be sure that others do
too, and I don't mean "false" gods. Not only has Yahweh never claimed to be
the sole deity in existence, he was originally part of a pantheon -- the
leader, according to some sources -- and the rest of that pantheon was
turned into his archangels, after some Hebrew priests decided one deity was
simpler to deal with than a bunch. Now, do *****, there's a good boy.
--
_______________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Fanatical Christianity *IS* WRONG! |
25 Jul 2005 09:54:57 PM |
|
|
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when J.W.
wrote:
<trollish attempt to divert conversation to private email noted and
diverted>
"Zigler" wrote:
"J.W." wrote...
DanielSan wrote:
<Snip>
Are you on drugs or just high on the lord?
I love The Lord Jesus who is actually the Lord God Almighty.
Yep. High on drugs.
What has Jim ever done to you for you to accuse him of something like
this?
Why do scoffers like you always have to be so offensive?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
I'm sorry, you answered two questions with one answer.
It was appropriate for him -- Zigler -- to do so.
Are you saying that it's a valid response to falsely accuse others of
crimes when you don't like what they say?
Crimes? Condescenscion, alienation and demonisation are "crimes"? OK, I
think we should all remember that one. May come in handy.
And, with regard to what you said is your "natural defensive reaction," I
must not be as good a reader as you are. I can't see where Jim was
condescending, alienating or demonizing. Could you point those places out
to me please?
He -- Jim -- did it explicitly in a different post. Here, it was implicit.
Simple enough?
when one knows not the Word and ones heart is not filled with the
joy of The Lord God Almighty's truth there is an emptiness in their
heart leaving room for the work of satan the devil. this is known
as giving place to satan the devil.
Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let
not the sun go down upon your wrath:
Eph 4:27 Neither give place to the devil.
giving place in your heart to satan the devil leads the mind to do the
work of satan the devil by seeing what is not there, thus creating the
lie of the thief. satan is the thief who seeks to rob the empty of
life, joy and love.
explicitly speaking and leaving no question as to meaning or intent,
I've called you or no other names produced from satan's lies nor have
I made any unfounded accusations concerning what you are or are not.
that would be the work of the lost, frustrated, confused who seeks to
retaliate for that which is not due as a result of having yielded to
the lies of satan the devil.
there is Good News:
Romans 10:9-10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
is made unto salvation.
being saved is really all about being set free from being used as satan's
tool. being given as a gift the natural power of God to drive satan away
from you and then to begin to live life in abundant joy where the need to
defend with lies is no longer able to purposely steel from you.
Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let
him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good,
that he may have to give to him that needeth.
Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your
mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that
it may minister grace unto the hearers.
____________________________________
there was once a time in america when the rule of law was the even hand
of justice for all. then slowly this changed. it is liked unto a school
class where the teacher established rules creating fairness for all. then
a time arrived when someone said the teacher's rules resembled Christian
principles and truths. after some foot stomping, fist pounding and voice
raising it was decried these Christian principles and truths must be driven
from all school classes school buildings and schools as well as that teacher
who introduced these Christian principles applied as the rule of law. yep
that teacher had to be silenced by whatever means required. then satan the
lair took over and the slow death began to kill all that good, fair and of
love.
I love God,
Jim
Do these characteristics - scoffing and obnoxiousness - always come
together? - or is it just your defense mechanism to fend off the
truth?
it is a natural defensive reaction to the condescension, alienation
and demonization of those who do not subscribe to the mythology or
share in the delusion (or individual experience, if you will).
So, you're saying that you think that a message of God's love - which is
all that Jim was talking about - constitutes condescention, alienation and
demonization? Is that really what you are saying?
In context (that of Jim's earlier conscious condescenscion, alienation, and
demonisation), yup, I believe he is saying that. Personally, even out of
context, but that may just be me.
<Snip>
I love you too, in a spiritual kind of way since we are
both children of God. He is the Father of us all, believers
and unbelievers, God loves us all.
Sorry, Jim, but I'm not homosexual. I cannot return your love.
So, I take it, then, that you didn't love your father, or
grandfather, or any other male relatives - in any sense of the word
"love." Goodness, we can't have any of that, can we?!?!
And of course, you can't love your children in any sense of the word
either, can you?
I love God,
Which means that you love yourself.
Which means that you are perishing from your own ignorance. The word
of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. (1
Corinthians 1:18.)
Do you read anything other than a collection of often arcane ramblings
written by desert nomads millennia ago and translated and rewritten
countless times? Real truth does not confine itself so...
Real truth doesn't confine itself? Well, if that's the test, then why do
you deny the truth? You ALWAYS confine yourself. Think about it.
Well, technically, all affirmations, statements, and teachings are true in
some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false
in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in
some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense, or at least
that's what my religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion says.
It could be the other way around, too.
--
_______________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tock" |
|
| Title: Re: Fanatical Christianity *IS* WRONG! |
24 Jul 2005 05:36:05 PM |
|
|
What we need is a fanatical attack on fanaticism . . .
-Tock
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
