| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2003 08:36:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: You have unalienable rights |
WOW !! No rules !
"Thelema9331" <Thelema@Aiwaz.net> wrote in message
news:3FCB083B.504A@Aiwaz.net...
under_the_bridge wrote:
DON'T VIOLATE RIGHTS
Right #1: RIGHT TO LIFE
Right #2: RIGHT TO FREEDOM
There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57
.
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
19 Dec 2003 12:26:45 AM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vu4p1f92oimc9d@corp.supernews.com...
WOW !! No rules !
Is that what you think it means? Are you excited by that prospect or
frightened by it?
Consider the stages of moral development outlined by Lawrence Kohlberg:
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
Kohlberg estimates that only about 25% of adults ever get to the sixth stage
of moral development, in which rules are secondary to overarching "universal
ethical principles".
The perspective used by the author of that manifesto was one in which the
post-conventional stages of development was assumed to have been reached.
It's not that there are no rules, it's that rules of moral conduct are
superceded by universal ethical principles, which are the "rights" that were
outlined.
Look at them again in that light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
19 Dec 2003 06:15:43 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FSwEb.10205$Pg1.2960@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vu4p1f92oimc9d@corp.supernews.com...
WOW !! No rules !
Is that what you think it means? Are you excited by that prospect or
frightened by it?
Consider the stages of moral development outlined by Lawrence Kohlberg:
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
Kohlberg estimates that only about 25% of adults ever get to the sixth
stage
of moral development, in which rules are secondary to overarching
"universal
ethical principles".
And there lies the flaw in your list of rights, as society exists at all
levels at once and has not mutually progressed, it can't work (except at a
pure spiritual level for the advanced)
The perspective used by the author of that manifesto was one in which the
post-conventional stages of development was assumed to have been reached.
Problem being, as explained above, is that this assumption is flawed, and
easily misunderstood, thus likely to be misapplied
It's not that there are no rules, it's that rules of moral conduct are
superceded by universal ethical principles, which are the "rights" that
were
outlined.
Look at them again in that light.
I saw the danger of how the general society would likely apply it
and thus my statement "WOW !! no rules !"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
19 Dec 2003 11:57:27 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vu75559rf1qc77@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FSwEb.10205$Pg1.2960@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Consider the stages of moral development outlined by Lawrence Kohlberg:
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
Kohlberg estimates that only about 25% of adults ever get
to the sixth stage of moral development, in which rules are
secondary to overarching "universal ethical principles".
And there lies the flaw in your list of rights, as society exists at all
levels at once and has not mutually progressed, it can't work
(except at a pure spiritual level for the advanced)
It's not intended to be forced on anyone by anyone. It's a list of rights,
not a list of rules.
A society which could accept these rights is a society that has mutually
progressed to the post-conventional level of moral development. However,
for a person of post-conventional moral development who lives within a
society in which there is no such mutual progression, these rights also hold
true for that individual, no matter what rules that society imposes.
The perspective used by the author of that manifesto was
one in which the post-conventional stages of development
was assumed to have been reached.
Problem being, as explained above, is that this assumption is
flawed, and easily misunderstood, thus likely to be misapplied
It certainly can be misunderstood. One way to misunderstand it is to think
it can be "applied" to anyone other than oneself.
Nevertheless, let's suppose, for the purposes of argument, that it could be
misapplied by people who don't understand it. Do you think the tenets of
Christianity cannot likewise be misapplied by those who don't understand
them? Haven't we seen many atrocities committed by societies who claimed
they were following the precepts of Jesus? Yet, as a Christian mystic, do
you not embrace the precepts of Jesus, as you understand them?
Isn't that the same thing?
I saw the danger of how the general society would likely apply it
and thus my statement "WOW !! no rules !"
I don't think there is any danger of any society embracing such a set of
rights without understanding them. Instead, they will, as you have done,
protest that such rights are unworkable because they violate the rules.
Consider also Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience".
"After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of
the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to
rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because
this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the
strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot
be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a
government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but
conscience?-in which majorities decide only those questions to which the
rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in
the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man
a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects
afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much
as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to
do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a
corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a
corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by
means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the
agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law
is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal,
privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and
dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and
consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a
palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business
in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are
they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of
some unscrupulous man in power?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
20 Dec 2003 03:55:43 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bxREb.11700$Pg1.6427@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vu75559rf1qc77@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FSwEb.10205$Pg1.2960@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Consider the stages of moral development outlined by Lawrence
Kohlberg:
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
Kohlberg estimates that only about 25% of adults ever get
to the sixth stage of moral development, in which rules are
secondary to overarching "universal ethical principles".
And there lies the flaw in your list of rights, as society exists at all
levels at once and has not mutually progressed, it can't work
(except at a pure spiritual level for the advanced)
It's not intended to be forced on anyone by anyone. It's a list of
rights,
not a list of rules.
A society which could accept these rights is a society that has mutually
progressed to the post-conventional level of moral development. However,
for a person of post-conventional moral development who lives within a
society in which there is no such mutual progression, these rights also
hold
true for that individual, no matter what rules that society imposes.
Agreed, but see below
The perspective used by the author of that manifesto was
one in which the post-conventional stages of development
was assumed to have been reached.
Problem being, as explained above, is that this assumption is
flawed, and easily misunderstood, thus likely to be misapplied
It certainly can be misunderstood. One way to misunderstand it is to
think
it can be "applied" to anyone other than oneself.
And learned by one's self, and passed on to / shared with others who have
shown themselves to have reached the level of developement to be ready for
it. Mysticism is dangerious to the unitiated, and therefore isn't taught /
propagated in the same way as when one is trying to convert someone to some
belief system.
My complaint isn't so much against what is being taught as it is the forum,
I am more used to mystical things being 'secretive' to those ready
Nevertheless, let's suppose, for the purposes of argument, that it could
be
misapplied by people who don't understand it. Do you think the tenets of
Christianity cannot likewise be misapplied by those who don't understand
them?
Unlike too many Christians Paul avoided serving 'meat' to they who were not
ready to 'chew meat' had Christian ministers paid more attention to this,
there would have been far less of those misunderstandings of which you speak
People within the Christian ngs of the cross-post list have read my posts
for years, without knowing too much of what I believe. They see my
pet-peeves, but little more,,,, because I am a mystic, and know not to
dwelve deeper than they are ready (I actually visit 'new age' / more
mystical ngs out of hunger for my own kind, not that it helps much)
Haven't we seen many atrocities committed by societies who claimed
they were following the precepts of Jesus? Yet, as a Christian mystic, do
you not embrace the precepts of Jesus, as you understand them?
That I do, but avoid attempting to teach much of it to others (most can only
handle 'milk')
Isn't that the same thing?
I saw the danger of how the general society would likely apply it
and thus my statement "WOW !! no rules !"
I don't think there is any danger of any society embracing such a set of
rights without understanding them. Instead, they will, as you have done,
protest that such rights are unworkable because they violate the rules.
Wrong, I don't see them as violating any rules, I see them as not explaining
an existance of rules, there is a diference from what you think I am
protesting, and what I am actually protesting
<snipped that which I have no response>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
20 Dec 2003 09:12:48 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vu9haiq81ivv5e@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bxREb.11700$Pg1.6427@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It certainly can be misunderstood. One way to misunderstand
it is to think it can be "applied" to anyone other than oneself.
And learned by one's self, and passed on to / shared with others who have
shown themselves to have reached the level of developement to be ready for
it.
Who appoints himself the censor who decides who has arrived at a given stage
of moral development and denies them, on that basis, access to what others
have written? Does not such an act constitute a violation of the rights of
each person, as expressed in Liber OZ?
Mysticism is dangerious to the unitiated, and therefore isn't
taught / propagated in the same way as when one is trying
to convert someone to some belief system.
Some people believe this. Others don't.
Nevertheless, let's suppose, for the purposes of argument,
that it could be misapplied by people who don't understand it.
Do you think the tenets of Christianity cannot likewise be
misapplied by those who don't understand them?
Unlike too many Christians Paul avoided serving 'meat' to they
who were not ready to 'chew meat' had Christian ministers
paid more attention to this, there would have been far less of
those misunderstandings of which you speak
It seems to me an outrageous presumption to withhold the gospel of salvation
from someone simply because you judge them unworthy of it. It was this
objection which caused the break between Jewish Christians and gentile
Christians. The Jewish Christians wanted the teachings of Jesus reserved
only for the Chosen People. The gentile Christians, Paul among them, felt
that this was completely wrong. Yet, here you seem to be saying that Paul
was doing the very same thing himself, by presuming to decide who was or was
not worthy to receive the teachings.
I don't think there is any danger of any society embracing
such a set of rights without understanding them. Instead,
they will, as you have done, protest that such rights are
unworkable because they violate the rules.
Wrong, I don't see them as violating any rules, I see them as
not explaining an existance of rules, there is a diference from
what you think I am protesting, and what I am actually protesting
Are you then complaining that Liber OZ does not tell you which rules one is
supposed to follow?
It doesn't discuss the existence of butterflies, either, despite the fact
that butterflies exist in abundance. Why, there are probably nearly as many
butterflies in the world as there are rules of one sort or another. So why
does Liber OZ not advocate for either butterflies or rules? I say it's
because Liber OZ is not concerned with rules or with butterflies, but with
rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
21 Dec 2003 12:26:28 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Qc8Fb.13082$0s2.10682@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vu9haiq81ivv5e@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bxREb.11700$Pg1.6427@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
Oups, I did have a remark to the snipped after all. The Spirit within
informs you if a fellow student (we are all students) is ready to receive
some of your deeper insights. This is also known by knowing the individual
to which you are passing things over to.
Mysticism is dangerious to the unitiated, and therefore isn't
taught / propagated in the same way as when one is trying
to convert someone to some belief system.
Some people believe this. Others don't.
Some people have seen others adversly effected by knowledge they weren't
ready for, others haven't
Nevertheless, let's suppose, for the purposes of argument,
that it could be misapplied by people who don't understand it.
Do you think the tenets of Christianity cannot likewise be
misapplied by those who don't understand them?
Unlike too many Christians Paul avoided serving 'meat' to they
who were not ready to 'chew meat' had Christian ministers
paid more attention to this, there would have been far less of
those misunderstandings of which you speak
It seems to me an outrageous presumption to withhold the gospel of
salvation
from someone simply because you judge them unworthy of it.
Cough, the gosple of salvation is MILK, while none of us are "worthy" we are
all ready to receive it.
Paul's matters of meat are post salvation, which he never got around to
writting, because as he complained his follows were still drinking milk and
weren't ready for meat
It was this
objection which caused the break between Jewish Christians and gentile
Christians. The Jewish Christians wanted the teachings of Jesus reserved
only for the Chosen People.
They wanted Jesus' gospel of salvation to include conversion to Judaism,
yes, but such has little to do with the mystic-meat Paul avoided getting
into
The gentile Christians, Paul among them, felt
that this was completely wrong. Yet, here you seem to be saying that Paul
was doing the very same thing himself, by presuming to decide who was or
was
not worthy to receive the teachings.
You are unopposed here as you are taking the ball to the wrong end of the
feild
I don't think there is any danger of any society embracing
such a set of rights without understanding them. Instead,
they will, as you have done, protest that such rights are
unworkable because they violate the rules.
Wrong, I don't see them as violating any rules, I see them as
not explaining an existance of rules, there is a diference from
what you think I am protesting, and what I am actually protesting
Are you then complaining that Liber OZ does not tell you which rules one
is
supposed to follow?
It takes for granted that the readers know the rules
It doesn't discuss the existence of butterflies, either, despite the fact
that butterflies exist in abundance. Why, there are probably nearly as
many
butterflies in the world as there are rules of one sort or another. So
why
does Liber OZ not advocate for either butterflies or rules? I say it's
because Liber OZ is not concerned with rules or with butterflies, but with
rights.
Which taken by themself, omit the need for rules
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
21 Dec 2003 04:01:33 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vubpeet1uqms85@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Qc8Fb.13082$0s2.10682@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Are you then complaining that Liber OZ does not tell you
which rules one is supposed to follow?
It takes for granted that the readers know the rules
Just as it takes for granted that the readers know butterflies.
It doesn't discuss the existence of butterflies, either, despite
the fact that butterflies exist in abundance. Why, there are
probably nearly as many butterflies in the world as there
are rules of one sort or another. So why does Liber OZ not
advocate for either butterflies or rules? I say it's because
Liber OZ is not concerned with rules or with butterflies, but
with rights.
Which taken by themself, omit the need for rules
No more that it omits the need for butterflies. Liber OZ is not about rules
or butterflies, but about rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
23 Dec 2003 02:38:27 PM |
|
|
Awww butterflies....
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1LoFb.14018$Pg1.7707@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vubpeet1uqms85@corp.supernews.com...
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Qc8Fb.13082$0s2.10682@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Are you then complaining that Liber OZ does not tell you
which rules one is supposed to follow?
It takes for granted that the readers know the rules
Just as it takes for granted that the readers know butterflies.
It doesn't discuss the existence of butterflies, either, despite
the fact that butterflies exist in abundance. Why, there are
probably nearly as many butterflies in the world as there
are rules of one sort or another. So why does Liber OZ not
advocate for either butterflies or rules? I say it's because
Liber OZ is not concerned with rules or with butterflies, but
with rights.
Which taken by themself, omit the need for rules
No more that it omits the need for butterflies. Liber OZ is not about
rules
or butterflies, but about rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
23 Dec 2003 03:30:53 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vuh9u4sv2pfqe3@corp.supernews.com...
Awww butterflies....
WOW! No butterflies!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
25 Dec 2003 06:48:15 AM |
|
|
Too cold
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hu2Gb.3169$lo3.890@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vuh9u4sv2pfqe3@corp.supernews.com...
Awww butterflies....
WOW! No butterflies!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hume" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
19 Dec 2003 07:28:38 AM |
|
|
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<vu4p1f92oimc9d@corp.supernews.com>...
WOW !! No rules !
Damned hard ones, actually Glenn.
Thou has to right but to do thy will...
Find your true Will.
Do that.
Don't do anything else.
And keep your nose out of everyone else's Will.
If, in order to live by the law of liberty, you are required to
respect every other individual's right to live by that same law, how
could one justify crimes of violence or property (which infringe the
target's right to life and the enjoyment of his resources)? How
justify polluting the environment, infringing the rights of those who
share its bounty? Sexual crimes, or even most pecadilloes, are right
out.
No rules? Damn hard rules, bubbeleh.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
19 Dec 2003 06:00:05 PM |
|
|
The sugestion that you stay out of someone's elses 'will' would be a good
rule, if it were actually listed as one. Except, how can these 'rights' be
enforced, without denying said rights ?
"Paul Hume" <paulhume@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ac3a0edc.0312190528.4984518f@posting.google.com...
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:<vu4p1f92oimc9d@corp.supernews.com>...
WOW !! No rules !
Damned hard ones, actually Glenn.
Thou has to right but to do thy will...
Find your true Will.
Do that.
Don't do anything else.
And keep your nose out of everyone else's Will.
If, in order to live by the law of liberty, you are required to
respect every other individual's right to live by that same law, how
could one justify crimes of violence or property (which infringe the
target's right to life and the enjoyment of his resources)? How
justify polluting the environment, infringing the rights of those who
share its bounty? Sexual crimes, or even most pecadilloes, are right
out.
No rules? Damn hard rules, bubbeleh.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hume" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
19 Dec 2003 08:26:45 PM |
|
|
The sugestion that you stay out of someone's elses 'will' would be a good
rule, if it were actually listed as one. Except, how can these 'rights' be
enforced, without denying said rights ?
I say again: these rights proceed from the statement that "Thou hast
no right but to do thy will; do that and no other shall say nay." If
you have these rights so does every other individual. How does
pursuing your rights, consonant with your Will, which must align
rightly with the Universe as a whole, deny others their rights?
If you mean someone might run about claiming it is his will to eat
your dinner, or paint on your house, etc. I might cite the principle
of non-dissension from aikido, which one can summarize as: conflict
suggests that someone is making a mistake.
Is it just the way Liber OZ states its position that bothers you, or
is it the underlying concept that each individual is responsible for
his actions?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane." |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
20 Dec 2003 07:36:14 AM |
|
|
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
If a perfect world full of enlightened beings we would all be
perfectly attuned to our Will - and if we were it must follow that our
Will's would be a Microcosmic reflection of the Macrocosmic Will.
In Christian terms we would be doing whatever God decreed for us in
total obedience to Him and thus guided could never be morally at
fault. I notice the Chritian flavour to the above posts so I'll use
Christian terminologies from here on...
I sometimes hear Thelemites claim to know `thier Will', and may even
go on to try and justify certain unlawful actions on this premise.
Look closely and you'll see that they might know what they `want',
what they `desire', even what they `think and feel' - but to know your
will is to follow it, and not to build a fancy justification around
it. This would indicate a Will devided against itself. Or in other
words the Will of the individual has become divergent from the Will of
God. A duality of the Will.
It follows then that if an individuals will is not unified with Gods
Will then he is following a course of `free Will' - which Lucifer
would certainly applaud. But God allows human beings this quality of
divergent Will so that we can better learn to serve Him, and in the
course of many lifetimes may come to that state of grace where we are
fit to return to his kingdom.
As Paul suggested: God allows us to make mistakes. It's our job on
this earth to learn from our mistakes. During our lives there is a
different lesson to learn every day, every second. In a way - we also
follow Gods Will by making these `mistakes' - and it is to His purpose
when we learn by them. Therefore - practically no undertaking on this
world is denied us.
When these `mistakes' involve the oppression of the Will of an
individual human being by another individual human being - it can be
said to be in the best interests of both parties (with one exception
that I'll go into at the end). Both have something to learn from the
experience. We are all agents of God on this earth and we should seek
to do His Will. The perfect lesson for a person with the intent to
murder should be a reflection of that to his own benefit. Therefore -
if a murderer get's killed in the process of his intended undertaking
and deprived of his physical body then he has been given a lesson
intended to instruct him. No doubt if he fails to learn from this and
tries it again then he will be similarly afflicted in his next life.
For the intended victim of his murder - if the `victim's Will is one
with the Will of God then he Will deprive the murderer of his body in
an act of complete love and compassion for his erring brother. Such
an individual cannot be judged by ordinary morality and his actions
cannot be said to be either good or evil but beyond these
classifications. He is the fulcrum - the balance and the reflection,
in perfect harmony with the Will of God and his being is filled with
love. And this is why Love is the Law, Love under Will.
Should the victims Will be divided then he has two paths to choose -
that of mercy, or that of strength. In other words - turn the other
cheek, or hit back! Either choice will have something to teach him.
It is his individual will that has determined the situation that he
finds himself in. The universe or God has sought to accomodate him:)
In this sense - every man and woman is a magician, and practises the
art every second that thier Will is divided from that of Gods Will.
The enlightened being will sleep when he is tired. Eat when he is
hungry. And do all without preference or the undue justifications of
morality. Although they may exist in this world they are not of this
world and hold the keys to the kingdom.
*The exception*
In the above examples there is a stress upon learning the lessons sent
to us from God according to the workings of free Will. There is an
expectation that human beings will learn and progress - in order to
become closer to unification with him. The exceptions to the Law -
that which is not permitted by the law are those actions that imperil
the soul leading to a human being descending in virtue to become a
demon. Child Abuse, Vampirism, and Rape all fit the catagory of Law
Breaking. Actions that have hate at the core of them - and are not
merely `mistakes'.
Jane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
20 Dec 2003 03:25:03 PM |
|
|
"thou" being God then, and not thou as in your individual self (one wonders
why it isn't thus said in the first place)
Jesus said it best "Not my will, but YOURS"
"Jane." <jan@babalon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:60c1718e.0312200536.6fd987e9@posting.google.com...
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
If a perfect world full of enlightened beings we would all be
perfectly attuned to our Will - and if we were it must follow that our
Will's would be a Microcosmic reflection of the Macrocosmic Will.
In Christian terms we would be doing whatever God decreed for us in
total obedience to Him and thus guided could never be morally at
fault. I notice the Chritian flavour to the above posts so I'll use
Christian terminologies from here on...
I sometimes hear Thelemites claim to know `thier Will', and may even
go on to try and justify certain unlawful actions on this premise.
Look closely and you'll see that they might know what they `want',
what they `desire', even what they `think and feel' - but to know your
will is to follow it, and not to build a fancy justification around
it. This would indicate a Will devided against itself. Or in other
words the Will of the individual has become divergent from the Will of
God. A duality of the Will.
It follows then that if an individuals will is not unified with Gods
Will then he is following a course of `free Will' - which Lucifer
would certainly applaud. But God allows human beings this quality of
divergent Will so that we can better learn to serve Him, and in the
course of many lifetimes may come to that state of grace where we are
fit to return to his kingdom.
As Paul suggested: God allows us to make mistakes. It's our job on
this earth to learn from our mistakes. During our lives there is a
different lesson to learn every day, every second. In a way - we also
follow Gods Will by making these `mistakes' - and it is to His purpose
when we learn by them. Therefore - practically no undertaking on this
world is denied us.
When these `mistakes' involve the oppression of the Will of an
individual human being by another individual human being - it can be
said to be in the best interests of both parties (with one exception
that I'll go into at the end). Both have something to learn from the
experience. We are all agents of God on this earth and we should seek
to do His Will. The perfect lesson for a person with the intent to
murder should be a reflection of that to his own benefit. Therefore -
if a murderer get's killed in the process of his intended undertaking
and deprived of his physical body then he has been given a lesson
intended to instruct him. No doubt if he fails to learn from this and
tries it again then he will be similarly afflicted in his next life.
For the intended victim of his murder - if the `victim's Will is one
with the Will of God then he Will deprive the murderer of his body in
an act of complete love and compassion for his erring brother. Such
an individual cannot be judged by ordinary morality and his actions
cannot be said to be either good or evil but beyond these
classifications. He is the fulcrum - the balance and the reflection,
in perfect harmony with the Will of God and his being is filled with
love. And this is why Love is the Law, Love under Will.
Should the victims Will be divided then he has two paths to choose -
that of mercy, or that of strength. In other words - turn the other
cheek, or hit back! Either choice will have something to teach him.
It is his individual will that has determined the situation that he
finds himself in. The universe or God has sought to accomodate him:)
In this sense - every man and woman is a magician, and practises the
art every second that thier Will is divided from that of Gods Will.
The enlightened being will sleep when he is tired. Eat when he is
hungry. And do all without preference or the undue justifications of
morality. Although they may exist in this world they are not of this
world and hold the keys to the kingdom.
*The exception*
In the above examples there is a stress upon learning the lessons sent
to us from God according to the workings of free Will. There is an
expectation that human beings will learn and progress - in order to
become closer to unification with him. The exceptions to the Law -
that which is not permitted by the law are those actions that imperil
the soul leading to a human being descending in virtue to become a
demon. Child Abuse, Vampirism, and Rape all fit the catagory of Law
Breaking. Actions that have hate at the core of them - and are not
merely `mistakes'.
Jane.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
25 Dec 2003 06:54:08 AM |
|
|
"Paul Hume" <paulhume@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ac3a0edc.0312191826.2698040d@posting.google.com...
The sugestion that you stay out of someone's elses 'will' would be a
good
rule, if it were actually listed as one. Except, how can these 'rights'
be
enforced, without denying said rights ?
I say again: these rights proceed from the statement that "Thou hast
no right but to do thy will; do that and no other shall say nay." If
you have these rights so does every other individual. How does
pursuing your rights, consonant with your Will, which must align
rightly with the Universe as a whole, deny others their rights?
If you mean someone might run about claiming it is his will to eat
your dinner, or paint on your house, etc. I might cite the principle
of non-dissension from aikido, which one can summarize as: conflict
suggests that someone is making a mistake.
Yeah the lack of a limitation on those 'rights' to do what ever one wants
Is it just the way Liber OZ states its position that bothers you, or
is it the underlying concept that each individual is responsible for
his actions?
What responsibility ? Its your 'right' to do whatever you want
Paul
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
25 Dec 2003 11:43:21 AM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vulnfc88956gc2@corp.supernews.com...
What responsibility ? Its your 'right' to do whatever you want
Isn't that the essence of free will?
Does not free will mean we have the right to do whatever we want, regardless
of consequences, regardless of what others wish us to do? We can, if we
choose, defy God Himself. The consequences of this may be severe, but don't
we still have the freedom to act this way?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
27 Dec 2003 09:49:32 AM |
|
|
Every person has free will and the ability to choose which ways they will go
through life. Consequences are teachers, designed to advise man when he is
right or wrong in his choosing.
When man loses his desire to live a good life, he has lost his desire for
righteousness. The consequence is the world man has created for himself in
this day.
However, this time in this physical life is merely a beginning. Ongoing life
after passing out of the physical world continues. For those not knowing nor
following the principles of God, this life is lived without God and with
people of like minds and spirit.
The people dwelling with God experience peace, love and joy. Those not
dwelling with God experience the same life they live now, with all the pain
and sorrow.
Not knowing these facts, man does not desire righteousness; not for himself
or others.
But, man has a right to become righteous. He has a right to receive the
fulfilling of the promise of God. Few, are aware of this and fewer yet ever
enter into and follow the way to receive. Few, will dwell with God.
All are called by God; few become the chosen who have answered and come to
God to receive.
People perish due to lack of knowledge of truth.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZkFGb.6120$lo3.6053@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vulnfc88956gc2@corp.supernews.com...
What responsibility ? Its your 'right' to do whatever you want
Isn't that the essence of free will?
Does not free will mean we have the right to do whatever we want,
regardless
of consequences, regardless of what others wish us to do? We can, if we
choose, defy God Himself. The consequences of this may be severe, but
don't
we still have the freedom to act this way?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
27 Jan 2004 05:34:49 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vuqvvk57513q81@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
The people dwelling with God experience peace, love and joy.
After an initual struggle, for me a number of years, peace, love and joy is
eventually found in every and all situations that life may throw at you
(truly a peace, love and joy which is beyond most all understandings. As
Paul put it "I have learned to be content in all things, I have learned to
be content in..." followed by a list of many good, and bad events.
Telling people the end result of experiencing a personal relationship with
God, without also explaining the learning process preceeding it, can be
misleading (which I don't think you intended on doing, sometimes we forget
our "spiritual schooling" and what it was like)
Those not dwelling with God experience the same life they live now, with
all the pain
and sorrow.
AMEN !!!
Not knowing these facts, man does not desire righteousness; not for
himself
or others.
But, man has a right to become righteous. He has a right to receive the
fulfilling of the promise of God. Few, are aware of this and fewer yet
ever
enter into and follow the way to receive. Few, will dwell with God.
All are called by God; few become the chosen who have answered and come to
God to receive.
People perish due to lack of knowledge of truth.
DW Suiter
Son of God
Glenn (Christian Mystic) also one of His Sons !
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
27 Dec 2003 11:05:05 AM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vuqvvk57513q81@corp.supernews.com...
Every person has free will and the ability to choose which ways
they will go through life. Consequences are teachers, designed
to advise man when he is right or wrong in his choosing.
When man loses his desire to live a good life, he has lost his
desire for righteousness. The consequence is the world man
has created for himself in this day.
As near as I can tell, what comprises a "good life" and how one goes about
living it, varies quite a bit from one person to the next.
The essence of free will is the ability to choose despite consequences. So
the world man lives in now is a product of free will.
Were we all mere mechanisms, I'm sure things would be much more harmonious.
However, this time in this physical life is merely a beginning.
Ongoing life after passing out of the physical world continues.
So some tell us, anyway.
For those not knowing nor following the principles of God,
this life is lived without God and with
people of like minds and spirit.
Again, so some claim.
The people dwelling with God experience peace, love and joy.
Those not dwelling with God experience the same life they live
now, with all the pain and sorrow.
So we're told by some people. It's kind of interesting that some of the
people who've told us that have inflicted quite a bit of pain and suffering
on those who didn't choose to believe them.
Not knowing these facts, man does not desire righteousness;
not for himself or others.
But are they facts? Or are they just tenets of a false belief?
But, man has a right to become righteous. He has a right to
receive the fulfilling of the promise of God. Few, are aware
of this and fewer yet ever enter into and follow the way to
receive.
And he has the right to reject the words of those who claim to speak for
God, as if God was somehow unable or unwilling to speak for Himself.
People perish due to lack of knowledge of truth.
People perish no matter what.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
28 Dec 2003 09:57:34 AM |
|
|
The social orders of mankind have indeed been established by the free will
of mankind. Man has chosen and selected the principles used to structure his
social orders.
The error of man is to not seek higher and better principles to use to
structure social orders.
If each of mankind worked for a better social order for all mankind, he
would better himself. However, man has taught man to be selfish and to think
only of himself. So by hook or crook each person ekes out a life for him/her
self by following the principles taught and the examples given by "leaders"
of the social orders. The result or consequence, is seen in the social
orders of mankind in this day.
The main principle used for man's social orders is the principle of
carnality; protect the physical above all things. There is no attention
given to the development of the mind. Yet every physical act was first a
thought.
Religionists all claim they speak for God even when they all (religions)
teach contradictions. Unfortunately, people judge God by the words and acts
of these religionists.
The greatest error of mankind is to have no love for truth and to not seek
truth in matters of importance. Truth to most people, is a compilation of
mere belief and opinion; whatever sounds good; whoever puts out the better
spin and hype.
Mankind has created himself to be what he is by use of his free will. He
recreates in his children, his mind. The problem is mankind is in a state of
retrogression.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5ZiHb.8128$lo3.973@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vuqvvk57513q81@corp.supernews.com...
Every person has free will and the ability to choose which ways
they will go through life. Consequences are teachers, designed
to advise man when he is right or wrong in his choosing.
When man loses his desire to live a good life, he has lost his
desire for righteousness. The consequence is the world man
has created for himself in this day.
As near as I can tell, what comprises a "good life" and how one goes about
living it, varies quite a bit from one person to the next.
The essence of free will is the ability to choose despite consequences.
So
the world man lives in now is a product of free will.
Were we all mere mechanisms, I'm sure things would be much more
harmonious.
However, this time in this physical life is merely a beginning.
Ongoing life after passing out of the physical world continues.
So some tell us, anyway.
For those not knowing nor following the principles of God,
this life is lived without God and with
people of like minds and spirit.
Again, so some claim.
The people dwelling with God experience peace, love and joy.
Those not dwelling with God experience the same life they live
now, with all the pain and sorrow.
So we're told by some people. It's kind of interesting that some of the
people who've told us that have inflicted quite a bit of pain and
suffering
on those who didn't choose to believe them.
Not knowing these facts, man does not desire righteousness;
not for himself or others.
But are they facts? Or are they just tenets of a false belief?
But, man has a right to become righteous. He has a right to
receive the fulfilling of the promise of God. Few, are aware
of this and fewer yet ever enter into and follow the way to
receive.
And he has the right to reject the words of those who claim to speak for
God, as if God was somehow unable or unwilling to speak for Himself.
People perish due to lack of knowledge of truth.
People perish no matter what.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
28 Dec 2003 09:05:22 AM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vutkqmgq6jvf09@corp.supernews.com...
The error of man is to not seek higher and better principles
to use to structure social orders.
There have been lots of attempts by lots of different people to establish an
ideal society acording to the principles that they believed to be "higher
and better".
During the 19th Century in America alone, there were hundreds of such
attempts.
It is completely false to claim that man has not sought higher and better
principles to use to structure social orders. It happens quite a bit. That
none of these attempts has completely dominated the whole of humanity is not
surprising. I don't think the Amish, for example, plan to rule the world.
If each of mankind worked for a better social order for
all mankind, he would better himself.
There was an attempt to establish a better social order for all of mankind
just recently. The Taliban set up a whole society along very strict Islamic
Law in Afganistan. Do you think they bettered themselves?
However, man has taught man to be selfish and to think
only of himself.
I don't know of any society that overtly teaches this. One reason for the
popularity of this attitude despite all the dire admonitions against it by
so many social leaders is its high survival value under adverse conditions.
The main principle used for man's social orders is the principle of
carnality; protect the physical above all things. There is no attention
given to the development of the mind.
Name one leader of any country who actively espouses carnality as a cardinal
principle of his society and who discourages education. Now, don't just
accuse. Quote actual statements made by any such leader that support your
contention.
Religionists all claim they speak for God even when they all
(religions) teach contradictions. Unfortunately, people judge
God by the words and acts of these religionists.
Well, if God won't bother to come out and correct these mistaken notions in
a clear and unequivocal way that everyone can understand, He has no one to
blame but Himself.
The greatest error of mankind is to have no love for truth
and to not seek truth in matters of importance.
"Truth" is what everyone claims to be preaching. You're no exception.
Truth to most people, is a compilation of
mere belief and opinion; whatever sounds good;
whoever puts out the better spin and hype.
How is your own conception of truth different from this? Please explain how
what you claim is not opinion or belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
28 Dec 2003 09:47:30 PM |
|
|
It appears you are not able to understand what I say. However, truth is
defined as;
any word accurately defining and portraying existing reality.
It also appears you are blind and dead to reality.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SiCHb.9010$lo3.6866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vutkqmgq6jvf09@corp.supernews.com...
The error of man is to not seek higher and better principles
to use to structure social orders.
There have been lots of attempts by lots of different people to establish
an
ideal society acording to the principles that they believed to be "higher
and better".
During the 19th Century in America alone, there were hundreds of such
attempts.
It is completely false to claim that man has not sought higher and better
principles to use to structure social orders. It happens quite a bit.
That
none of these attempts has completely dominated the whole of humanity is
not
surprising. I don't think the Amish, for example, plan to rule the world.
If each of mankind worked for a better social order for
all mankind, he would better himself.
There was an attempt to establish a better social order for all of mankind
just recently. The Taliban set up a whole society along very strict
Islamic
Law in Afganistan. Do you think they bettered themselves?
However, man has taught man to be selfish and to think
only of himself.
I don't know of any society that overtly teaches this. One reason for the
popularity of this attitude despite all the dire admonitions against it by
so many social leaders is its high survival value under adverse
conditions.
The main principle used for man's social orders is the principle of
carnality; protect the physical above all things. There is no attention
given to the development of the mind.
Name one leader of any country who actively espouses carnality as a
cardinal
principle of his society and who discourages education. Now, don't just
accuse. Quote actual statements made by any such leader that support your
contention.
Religionists all claim they speak for God even when they all
(religions) teach contradictions. Unfortunately, people judge
God by the words and acts of these religionists.
Well, if God won't bother to come out and correct these mistaken notions
in
a clear and unequivocal way that everyone can understand, He has no one to
blame but Himself.
The greatest error of mankind is to have no love for truth
and to not seek truth in matters of importance.
"Truth" is what everyone claims to be preaching. You're no exception.
Truth to most people, is a compilation of
mere belief and opinion; whatever sounds good;
whoever puts out the better spin and hype.
How is your own conception of truth different from this? Please explain
how
what you claim is not opinion or belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
28 Dec 2003 09:57:53 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vuuuebn1h8rh09@corp.supernews.com...
It appears you are not able to understand what I say.
There is a difference between understanding what you say and believing what
you say. I understand what you're saying very well. However, I don't
believe that what you're saying is congruent with the way things really are.
However, truth is defined as;
any word accurately defining and portraying existing reality.
You said, "Truth to most people, is a compilation of mere belief and
opinion; whatever sounds good; whoever puts out the better spin and hype."
So I asked you how *your* assertions are different from mere belief and
opinion. Apparently, your answer is that you believe that your statements
are an accurate portrayal of reality.
However, if you believe that your opinons and beliefs really are an accurate
portrayal of reality, how come you say that man doesn't try to establish an
ideal society acording to the principles that they believed to be "higher
and better" when there are literally hundreds of examples of people doing
just that in recent history, as I pointed out?
Just in case you are unaware that such communities really existed, I suggest
you do a quick Google search, using the key words "shaker", "harmonist",
"oneida", "amana" and "amish". To narrow your search to only the utopian
communities, add the word "community" to any of the previous key words.
It also appears you are blind and dead to reality.
I suppose so, if we stipulate that comparing well-known history to your
claims and finding that your claims are not consistent with that history has
the effect of deadening and blinding one to reality.
I think that, while your statements are not an accurate portrayal of
reality, they are an accurate portrayal of your beliefs and opinions.
However, those beliefs and opinions are not well-informed as regards the
history of human societies and could use a certain amount of modification,
if you really want them to represent reality more accurately.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
29 Dec 2003 09:25:46 AM |
|
|
A way for man to be transformed in mind and spirit; to learn higher and
better principles, was presented long ago. This way has been rejected by
mankind. Why? Because of what I have said; man does not seek better ways and
principles for use in structuring social orders. Man is arrogant, and mixing
this with stupidity, he believes he is the most intelligent of all existing
beings and therefore doesn't want any help. He believes he "knows it all" or
is able to "figure everything out."
Consequently, he has created this world he lives in with all its horrors and
atrocities.
No, if man really wanted to know or to learn, the way remains in existence.
Man refuses to seek knowledge of truth. He prefers his beliefs and opinions
rather than possessing sure knowledge of truth.
In order for any person to know for sure whether what I say is truth or not,
that person would have to compare what I say with the properties of the
reality I speak of and determine if my word accurately portrays the reality.
My word is not proved by mere opinion or mere belief. Nor is it proved by
common and popular religious doctrine and teachings. This is the error of
mankind; to not seek the truth; to not prove what is truth and what is not.
Man is content to merely open his mind and let whosever fill it up with
whatever.
The fact that man has not sought knowledge of higher and better principles;
has not expended energy in pursuit of this; proves my word. The way to find
and know exists. This is reality. However, if man rejects the truth in
regards to this existing reality, he will never know the reality, remaining
dead to the reality; deaf to the word of truth portraying the reality. Such
were the religionists who heard and rejected the teachings oaf Jesus of
Nazareth in regards to this same reality I speak of. They remained dead to
the life they could have learned to live; deaf and unable to hear God.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5DNHb.9850$lo3.2009@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vuuuebn1h8rh09@corp.supernews.com...
It appears you are not able to understand what I say.
There is a difference between understanding what you say and believing
what
you say. I understand what you're saying very well. However, I don't
believe that what you're saying is congruent with the way things really
are.
However, truth is defined as;
any word accurately defining and portraying existing reality.
You said, "Truth to most people, is a compilation of mere belief and
opinion; whatever sounds good; whoever puts out the better spin and hype."
So I asked you how *your* assertions are different from mere belief and
opinion. Apparently, your answer is that you believe that your statements
are an accurate portrayal of reality.
However, if you believe that your opinons and beliefs really are an
accurate
portrayal of reality, how come you say that man doesn't try to establish
an
ideal society acording to the principles that they believed to be "higher
and better" when there are literally hundreds of examples of people doing
just that in recent history, as I pointed out?
Just in case you are unaware that such communities really existed, I
suggest
you do a quick Google search, using the key words "shaker", "harmonist",
"oneida", "amana" and "amish". To narrow your search to only the utopian
communities, add the word "community" to any of the previous key words.
It also appears you are blind and dead to reality.
I suppose so, if we stipulate that comparing well-known history to your
claims and finding that your claims are not consistent with that history
has
the effect of deadening and blinding one to reality.
I think that, while your statements are not an accurate portrayal of
reality, they are an accurate portrayal of your beliefs and opinions.
However, those beliefs and opinions are not well-informed as regards the
history of human societies and could use a certain amount of modification,
if you really want them to represent reality more accurately.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
29 Dec 2003 09:47:01 AM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vv07b5s7ck547@corp.supernews.com...
A way for man to be transformed in mind and spirit; to learn
higher and better principles, was presented long ago. This way
has been rejected by mankind.
Oh, so it's not just any "higher and better principles" you're talking about
that have been "rejected" by everybody in the world.. It's only the "higher
and better principles" that *you personally* believe in.
Man is arrogant, and mixing
this with stupidity, he believes he is the most intelligent of
all existing beings and therefore doesn't want any help.
Would this include you? Or are you not a member of the human race?
He believes he "knows it all" or
is able to "figure everything out."
Then I guess it *does* include you, since that's exactly how you're coming
across.
Man refuses to seek knowledge of truth. He prefers his beliefs
and opinions rather than possessing sure knowledge of truth.
From my viewpoint, what you're saying is that other people prefer their own
opinions and beliefs to your opinions and beliefs. This seems to be a cause
of a certain amount of resentment in you, as evidenced by the bitter and
derogatory tone you use when describing the failings of everyone in the
world except yourself.
In order for any person to know for sure whether what I say is
truth or not, that person would have to compare what I say with
the properties of the reality I speak of and determine if my word
accurately portrays the reality.
I made that comparison, but you didn't care for the result. Your claim that
mankind does not seek to create societies using higher and better principles
is untrue. Therefore, your statement to that effect is not an accurate
portrayal of reality.
My word is not proved by mere opinion or mere belief.
I agree. However, your word has been disproved by a cursory check of 19th
century American history. For your part, the only "proof" you've offered is
your own opinions and beliefs.
The fact that man has not sought knowledge of higher and better
principles; has not expended energy in pursuit of this; proves my
word. The way to find and know exists. This is reality.
So you say, but what a person says, devoid of evidence, is no more than an
opinion or a statement of mere belief. I have presented clear and obvious
historical evidence of the many utopian communities that were founded
throughout the 19th century in America, all of them based on what their
founders sought as higher and better principles. This evidence contradicts
your claim that no one even seeks to do this. You have offered no evidence
whatsoever that your claim is true. So, by comparing what you say to the
way things really are, we can reasonably conclude that your claim is an
inaccurate portrayal of reality.
Now, if you have an idea about what higher and better principles people
should base their society around, and you feel that no one in the world is
interested in building a society on these principles, then it seems to me
that you have an obligation to build that society yourself. By studying the
way others successfully built their utopian sociieties, you could learn how
to do it, too. You certainly won't get any closer to your own version of
utopia by merely complaining that other people won't do what you're not
doing yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
30 Dec 2003 08:49:06 PM |
|
|
You have only presented your belief and opinion, which is as a matter of
fact worthless. It is void of any semblance of intelligence, void of address
and response to principles, falling to the lower principles of personal
attack; the ploy of morons.
Any fool can look at the state of mankind's affairs and the world man has
created for himself and see the obvious.
I speak by possession of sure knowledge, not mere belief nor opinion. A
matter you cannot comprehend.
DW Suiter
Son of God.
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:V%XHb.24805$Pg1.6535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vv07b5s7ck547@corp.supernews.com...
A way for man to be transformed in mind and spirit; to learn
higher and better principles, was presented long ago. This way
has been rejected by mankind.
Oh, so it's not just any "higher and better principles" you're talking
about
that have been "rejected" by everybody in the world.. It's only the
"higher
and better principles" that *you personally* believe in.
Man is arrogant, and mixing
this with stupidity, he believes he is the most intelligent of
all existing beings and therefore doesn't want any help.
Would this include you? Or are you not a member of the human race?
He believes he "knows it all" or
is able to "figure everything out."
Then I guess it *does* include you, since that's exactly how you're coming
across.
Man refuses to seek knowledge of truth. He prefers his beliefs
and opinions rather than possessing sure knowledge of truth.
From my viewpoint, what you're saying is that other people prefer their
own
opinions and beliefs to your opinions and beliefs. This seems to be a
cause
of a certain amount of resentment in you, as evidenced by the bitter and
derogatory tone you use when describing the failings of everyone in the
world except yourself.
In order for any person to know for sure whether what I say is
truth or not, that person would have to compare what I say with
the properties of the reality I speak of and determine if my word
accurately portrays the reality.
I made that comparison, but you didn't care for the result. Your claim
that
mankind does not seek to create societies using higher and better
principles
is untrue. Therefore, your statement to that effect is not an accurate
portrayal of reality.
My word is not proved by mere opinion or mere belief.
I agree. However, your word has been disproved by a cursory check of 19th
century American history. For your part, the only "proof" you've offered
is
your own opinions and beliefs.
The fact that man has not sought knowledge of higher and better
principles; has not expended energy in pursuit of this; proves my
word. The way to find and know exists. This is reality.
So you say, but what a person says, devoid of evidence, is no more than an
opinion or a statement of mere belief. I have presented clear and obvious
historical evidence of the many utopian communities that were founded
throughout the 19th century in America, all of them based on what their
founders sought as higher and better principles. This evidence
contradicts
your claim that no one even seeks to do this. You have offered no
evidence
whatsoever that your claim is true. So, by comparing what you say to the
way things really are, we can reasonably conclude that your claim is an
inaccurate portrayal of reality.
Now, if you have an idea about what higher and better principles people
should base their society around, and you feel that no one in the world is
interested in building a society on these principles, then it seems to me
that you have an obligation to build that society yourself. By studying
the
way others successfully built their utopian sociieties, you could learn
how
to do it, too. You certainly won't get any closer to your own version of
utopia by merely complaining that other people won't do what you're not
doing yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
30 Dec 2003 11:26:00 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vv43obsoso0f3@corp.supernews.com...
You have only presented your belief and opinion,
I have presented historical facts. You, however, have made nothing but
baseless claims.
Any fool can look at the state of mankind's affairs and the world
man has created for himself and see the obvious.
Anyone can think his imaginings are "obvious", but only a fool will cling to
his imaginings when presented with plain facts that demonstrate their error.
I speak by possession of sure knowledge, not mere belief nor opinion.
You have yet to present a single bit of evidence in favor of your claim or
to refute the evidence I presented that contradicts it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
31 Dec 2003 08:45:32 AM |
|
|
You are wasting my time with your nonsense. What you present is void of
intellectual merit. I don't play these childish games.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:I5tIb.13072$lo3.12772@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vv43obsoso0f3@corp.supernews.com...
You have only presented your belief and opinion,
I have presented historical facts. You, however, have made nothing but
baseless claims.
Any fool can look at the state of mankind's affairs and the world
man has created for himself and see the obvious.
Anyone can think his imaginings are "obvious", but only a fool will cling
to
his imaginings when presented with plain facts that demonstrate their
error.
I speak by possession of sure knowledge, not mere belief nor opinion.
You have yet to present a single bit of evidence in favor of your claim or
to refute the evidence I presented that contradicts it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: You have unalienable rights |
31 Dec 2003 12:42:16 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:vv5dnrncmmr361@corp.supernews.com...
You are wasting my time with your nonsense.
I'm wasting my time with your nonsense, too. So we're even.
What you present is void of intellectual merit.
That's pretty funny. What you mean by "void of intellectual merit" is that
you don't want to think about what I've presented. You know very well that
it completely and utterly refutes your false claim. Since you would much
rather cling to your self-flattering illusion than face reality, you must
not, under any circumstances, seriously consider the evidence I've provided.
I don't play these childish games.
At least not when you're losing as badly as you are in this one. Go find
some other childish game to play, instead. Maybe hide and seek. Tell you
what... You go hide in some other newsgroup and wait for me to find you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
