This country was founded by people . .

Post #44,033 by Andrew Grygus 6/30/02 11:41:33 PM Reply	This country was founded by people . . . . who were all pretty much Free Masons. They built it on Masonic principles and used a whole bunch of Masonic symbolism. The Christians have been busy ever since trying to erase all that and paste their God / Jesus stuff all over everything - and are currently working pretty damned hard to erase the last of the principles upon which it was founded. Heil Jesus! Kill a Commie for Christ! Oooops - that's "Kill an Arab for Christ", now isn't it? But it doesn't sound as good - and all those pro-Arab intellectuals are all Commies anyway, so we'll just keep Commie. Kill 'em all! [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,040 by Ashton 6/30/02 11:58:58 PM Reply	..and that's a Fact: ___Freemasons. __ Most of the Biggies.
Post #44,174 by orion 7/1/02 10:50:21 PM Reply	Yes, people, but most of them God-fearing people. True, Free Masons, but many of them believed in the Christian God. Excuse me but [link\|http://www.archives.gov\|Archives.gov] appeared to be busy or unresponsive, so I found this instead: [link\|http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html\|[link\|http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html\|http://www.law.indi...aration.html]] When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The "G" word is right there in the The Declaration of Independence. And the "Creator" word here: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So based on the founding father's declaration of independence, where do our rights come from? This country wouldn't have come about if God hadn't willed it to. The problem was then after that the people took control, and then did things their own way. God didn't intend for the Native Americans to get slaughtered for their land, etc. People did that, not God. God helped bring about and inspire a better system, but human beings are the ones that fouled it all up. BTW we are not saying kill Arabs, if anything we are saying fight terrorism. If Terrorism is taking away our way of life, then we can fight it by living our lives the way we want to and to the fullest. No killing required there. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,194 by Andrew Grygus 7/2/02 1:44:24 AM Reply	You seem quite free in speaking for God. Careful, He may not take kindly to your presumption. In particular you say that God did not intend the slaughter of the Indians, yet this is the same God that, according to the book you hold to be "The Word of God", endorsed the slaughter of one indiginous people after another in favor of his "chosen people". What makes the Indians any different? Given the evidence of "The Word of God", I'd say the slaughter was "God blessed". How is it this country would not have come about had God not willed it, yet He turns it over to bad people a moment later? Are people incapable of good? Does God have the attention span of a TV channel surfer? Does he tend to fall asleep a lot? Did not the Founding Fathers have plenty of perfectly good commercial reasons to form this nation? You also presume the God concept of the 1776 Freemasons is identical to the Christian God you know today, that the words God and Creator had the exact same meaning in their context as the Christian God/Creator in yours. A pretty big presumption considering Masonic rites were the springboard from which Aleister Crowley launched. Count the number 777 for it is the number of a Woman, and her name is Babylon! No, I think this God you present is a construct of convenience, adjusted and reconfgured according to circumstances, to justify and rationalize the murder of people labeled "unbelievers", the theft of their property, and with sufficient wrath left over to keep the "believers" in line. I find it impossible to accept the validity of a God who has a burning need to be worshiped, who needs priests to speak his will, and who exhibits personality traits that are all too human. Such a critter is not the "creator of all things". I also find it difficult to consider as Christians people who accept the prepending of the "Old Testament" to the Christian texts. Those are not Christian documents, they were adopted as a convenience to justify an authoritarian church structure for a religion that properly has none, and to condone acts that Jesus would never have condoned. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,310 by static 7/3/02 2:09:22 AM Reply	Old Testament vs New Testament. I find it impossible to accept the validity of a God who has a burning need to be worshiped, who needs priests to speak his will, and who exhibits personality traits that are all too human. Such a critter is not the "creator of all things". What about a god who just wants his creation to love him? I also find it difficult to consider as Christians people who accept the prepending of the "Old Testament" to the Christian texts. Those are not Christian documents, they were adopted as a convenience to justify an authoritarian church structure for a religion that properly has none, and to condone acts that Jesus would never have condoned. I wonder how much you realize that this is a thorny topic inside the church, too. There are whole theological libraries pontificating about why the OT is in the Bible. Ask me about this in Religion sometime. Maybe I can condense what little I have read into postable paragraphs. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,328 by boxley 7/3/02 8:52:43 AM Reply	start a thread, Ill be there TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #44,379 by CRConrad 7/3/02 3:01:26 PM Reply	"wants creation to love him" -omnipotent, and so insecure?!?
Post #44,399 by Ashton 7/3/02 4:20:45 PM Reply	Unfair! See... you have to Know Her rilly well, before She explains how it is that - She's So Much Like Us. Privileged communications, those.. I mean - would you read yer sister's diary out loud at a Sports bar? Oh ye of little faith; had ye the faith of a tiny mustard seed! Ashton God-PR Ltd. ..it's a living
Post #44,777 by tseliot 7/8/02 12:57:58 PM Reply	"doesn't want creation to love him" -omnip, + so antisocial? --------------------------------- Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #45,598 by CRConrad 7/15/02 7:02:46 AM Reply	"Omnipotence Means You Don't Have To Give A Shit" Or, at least, not care all that fucking much. Let's try an analogy: Ever had an ant farm? If not, please pretend you have. Now, when (or if) you realized the ants didn't love you (because, trust me, they don't) -- were you (would you be) crushed? Or did (would) you crush them? What would you call someone who smashed his ant farm, and most of the ants in it, for not "loving" him "the right way"? Someone who, when he found out his ants weren't -- aren't capable of being -- "devoted" to him as they're "supposed" to be, would then take a hammer and smash their home, and start squashing ants collectively and individually, yelling "You're supposed to LOVE me, you little fuckers!"... A psychotic, whacko, raving lunatic, is what I would call such a person. And according to Holy Scripture of (AFAIK) all three major monotheistic religions, that's exactly how their (your) god has behaved towards Man, his creation, on several occasions. And we're supposed to worship that vicious fucker?!? Spare me. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #45,601 by pwhysall 7/15/02 7:39:53 AM Reply	Keeper. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #45,636 by tseliot 7/15/02 11:37:03 AM Reply	So now you're in my camp... Assuming God is like you more than unlike you. So is He/She/It like us or not? Can't have it both ways is my point. Trying to argue that God is outside the norm because he's outside the norm is a bit silly to me. Pick a position and stick with it. "Omnipotence Means You Don't Have To Give A Shit" Or, at least, not care all that fucking much. Boy, am I glad you are not God. I happen to believe in a God who chooses to care even though/if he doesn't have to. There is equally as much evidence that He sees us as his children, not his ant farm (a nice detail you choose to ignore in your thought experiment). Aha! you say, that makes it worse. Well, perhaps. But I'd rather be a son of God with a chance to choose (and a means to reconcile when I screw up, don't leave that bit out) than an ant fated to be crushed (NickP can disagree if he wants to on this point). Leave the analogies, CR, you should have enough experience on this board by now to know they don't hold up for long. The Biblical category of "children" is well-documented, so I don't mind using it. Show me chapter and verse on the ants if you can. I'm also having trouble finding the verse ending in "you little fuckers!"--got it handy? --------------------------------- Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #45,638 by CRConrad 7/15/02 11:39:31 AM Reply	No, I'm not - I don't "punish" my ants for not loving me
Post #45,706 by Ashton 7/15/02 7:10:41 PM Reply	'Taint "love" if'n it's done in fear of consequences of Not. I kinda liked it when this obscure Prof. of Greek history (IIRC) at UC Berkeley dispensed with the rationale of loyalty oaths in an entirely analogous way - A coerced oath is invalid on its face. (Ernst Cantorowicz (sp) - a memorable name amidst the unsung) OK Daddy, I'll kill little Billy to show how Much I Respect You (if'n ya just won't Kill Me - OK?) ummm OK? huh.. huh.. Tell Me! ya sadistic Bastard! {oops} ... {I didn't Mean That. Honest, Daddy!} Ah.. we gets so soon old, so late smart. But always so %^%& Sure!
Post #45,776 by tseliot 7/16/02 12:11:32 PM Reply	True enough. 'Taint "love" if'n it's done in fear of consequences of Not. Right. I love Him because He made a universe in which I could be more than a robot. The fact that some people would rather He didn't, doesn't change that fact. All the "sadism" hand-waving just tells me you want (or believe to exist) one of the following: 1. A universe where there is no God. 2. A universe where there is no choice. 3. A universe where there is no consequence. Choice demands boundaries, rewards, and consequences. The fact that the Biblical God bound all those factors into a contractual relationship with His people seems to be the sticking-point for you? Or is it that the consequences are irrevocable (ie - death)? Quite frankly, I wouldn't give a tinker's damn about the consequences if they weren't final, and neither would anyone else; "I'll just recant on my death-bed," right? --------------------------------- Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #45,827 by Ashton 7/16/02 9:08:31 PM Reply	Sorry,___ but those are Boolean options.____Again. The idea of a "personal + personally-Interested-in Moi! God" is, I opine: an entirely homo-sap contrivance. Pretty much a Christian one, especially in the absurd detail! of the humanoid-'personality' always assigned to God by all Christian sects. If you like Cosmic Rulez n'such (?) here is a much Older Principle, not claimed to "emanate via direct verbal transmission from a Him, Her or Other nameable Entity", but a necessary Part of any concept of there being 'higher/lower' states, actualities? of "Beingness". (Reality similarly.. is reserved for that which is 'timeless, never-changing' ie. about Something we know Zilch about 'here') Here's the Principle sort-of, since such matters Always suffer in language, with all its necessary referents to commonplace things: The Absolute is without attributes - ie NO QUALITIES may be imagined then 'assigned' to this unKnowable ____ which is beyond: 1) Quantization 2) Being / Nonbeing 3) Time (!) and all our hazy concepts within a world of merely apparent opposites and merely apparent ... 'passage of events' ie our World of Duality. 4) Any Other 'quality' homo-sap imagines and loves to project Upwards. (not limited merely to the idea of gender! but all the rest too, including human stimulus/response to emotion, "desire for worship" etc.) Thus your 3 Choices lie squarely within these Imaginations; derive from the fear we have of Not Knowing whence we came, 'when' we leave nor - what the idea of 'death' connotes. All this stuff presumes.. that I. Am. ... this body? and presumes much else. There are quite Other ways to view this-all and to allow for the UnKnowable without 'deciding' matters inexorably beyond our capacity to Know. Nothing 'wrong' with enjoying your personal choice. Simply though, whenever "one of Yours" edges over into Revealed Truth => Solely Possessed by Moi & Mine and Not.. V\ufffdtres! you will hear from Others, and hear about 'explanations' quite prior to 0 AD.. many of which are folded-in to your dogma, and claimed as revelation or Revelation. Lots of these! Clear(er)? Ashton I Am That I Am was Good! then the human-embellishment began.. As did the Corporations... corpore sano / body / etc. The ongoing Warz were inevitable. And still are. Each homo-sap ego just Must be Right-eous. We will kill to Prove our Righteousness. QED
Post #45,892 by tseliot 7/17/02 2:10:07 PM Reply	Then I expect you to be consistent. The Absolute is without attributes Next time CR snipes at God because of his "attributes" I expect you to rail at him as much as you do me. Until then, I expect you to stop talking on subjects which you feel are unknowable. --------------------------------- Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #45,910 by Ashton 7/17/02 4:19:58 PM Reply	Fair enough. And whether it's CRC or Jerry Foulwell - same deal. And I do not talk 'on' subjects which are unknowable - I talk about the frequent, one might say prevalent? imaginations that they are knowable. I believe that is an important distinction. Ashton
Post #45,727 by static 7/16/02 12:12:43 AM Reply	I see you're perpetuating myths again. Ignorant fundamentalist claptrap goes "Worship God or Burn In Hell!" - which might have been fine enough when Not Worshipping God meant Worshipping Some Other God, but now there's Not Worshipping Any God, as you keep swearing at us about. Current modern evangelical Christian thinking says "Worship God because He Loves You and wants You to have the best He can offer in this life and the next." with a PS that goes "He knows best because He made us. Savvy?" Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #45,738 by CRConrad 7/16/02 5:55:30 AM Reply	So, why do you call yourself a "Christian", if... ...you don't believe in the frigging _Bible_?!? How is this "Current modern evangelical thinking" [N.B: No "Christian" in there; it doesn't belong] anything other than "Ignorant NON-fundamentalist New-Age namby-pamby claptrap", when it ignores the very Holy Scripture it claims to be all about??? 'Coz that stuff IS in there, how ever much you try to deny it. I am not "perpetuating myths"; I'm just being uncomfortable by reminding you of your myths, the existence of which you seem to want to deny when it's convenient. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #45,744 by static 7/16/02 7:57:26 AM Reply	Don't put words in my mouth, CRC. Nor remove the ones I did say. The song below by a [link\|http://www.paulcolmantrio.com/\|friend of mine] says all I need to say to you on this topic at this point. Wade. Dear God I don't understand What you're doing If you're real and you're in control You must see the path we're choosing And I don't understand but somehow I believe It's all in your hands Yeah but I don't believe in a God who gives More of his love to those who say they believe And I've read you're book and I think it says It's not what you say but it's how you live Dear God How your name's been used to justify treason And although it hurts me to say Sometimes the enemy's religion And I don't understand but somehow I believe It's all in your hands Yeah but I don't believe in a God who gives More of his love to those who say they believe And I've read you're book and I think it says It's not what you say but it's how you live And I don't understand but somehow I believe It's all in your hands Yeah but I don't believe in a God who gives More of his love to those who say they believe And I've read you're book and I know it says It's not what you say but it's how you live There ain't none so blind as them that won't believe.
Post #45,750 by CRConrad 7/16/02 9:08:53 AM Reply	Then you first refrain from doing so to me. Or what the fuck do you think your "perpetuating myths" post was doing?!? Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #45,841 by static 7/16/02 10:37:23 PM 7/16/02 10:43:27 PM Reply	Post rescinded. "Ah. One of the difficult questions." Edited by static July 16, 2002, 10:43:27 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #45,781 by orion 7/16/02 12:39:07 PM Reply	More than just that Worship God or burn in Hell. Well rather face judgement from God after you die, which could lead to burning in Hell. Worship God because he made us. Many are ungrateful, but God must have had a reason for making us the way we are. Worship God because he wants you to have the best in this life and the next. Well some of us, he must want to suffer? He only tests the strong, right? But most importantly, worship God because he sent his son Jesus to die for our sins so that they can be forgiven. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. The sin keeps us away from God and gets us into trouble. When we disobey God, we sin. God sent us the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Laws, and other things to follow like the words of Jesus. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,834 by Ashton 7/16/02 10:03:18 PM Reply	No need to perpetuate problems. What You choose to Believe is entirely your own affair. In fact the only time/event/situation wherein another might Care What You Believe is: When, acting upon your beliefs/Beliefs - You/Yours demonstrate a next willingness to limit My Choices about "life on this planet" (to keep it simple) via enforcing Your Beliefs into: Civil Law. (or near-equivalents in enforcing behavior other than overtly legally) Can you never Get This? Your [personal idea of a] God is not My [personal idea of a] God !! (And even If It Were, pretty-much? I hope.. I would have gained the experience and wisdom to Not impose 'Our' [personal ideas of] Beliefs upon a Third Party.) Rebutting 'Christian-persons' is not about telling You that Your Beliefs + Dogma are Wrong. It is about telling You that: You have no monopoly upon Truth, even if that is a tenet of Your! [personal idea of a] Good dogma for You to Follow\ufffd <<< ie your withholding of a next urge to proselytize: does not mean that You Don't Believe Well-enough so as to.. automatically Defend Your idea of Truth! It means only that, you acknowledge that Others live on the planet too. Until you Get This you will continue to say your homilies as-if: I and Others are Wrong / You are Right-eous. Just as with the start of every War since the First... and as Shall continue well into Tomorrow BECAUSE of this intransigent, intolerant mere-Personal-feeling of.. nothing more complex than - Mine's Bigger\ufffd (And worse: I Will Save You from Your Error! 'Patronize' derives from the very-same Father-fixation root) {sheesh}^x Ashton [just paste this after your next sermon, svp.]
Post #44,487 by orion 7/4/02 8:22:49 PM Reply	People are both bad and good sometimes doing more good or bad than the other. People may do bad in one case, and do good in another. God knows that everyone is a sinner and that everyone has sinned. If he sent every sinner to a firery Hell, then Earth and Heaven would be an empty place. God knows if we are good or evil, but God also can forgive and change a person around. For example, Moses was a murder, Paul spoke out against Jesus at first. Sometimes it doesn't take a burning bush or God appearing in front of a person to change them. Slaughtering of one race over another, are you talking about the Egyptians? The ones that wouldn't let God's people go, and did unspeakable evils to God's people? God was justified in that, hit the Egyptians with things that the Egyptians claimed their Gods could only do. But anyway, I've noticed your AntiChristian statements, the usual arguments the AntiChristian community uses. In general, blaming modern Christians for what some Christians did hundreds or thousands of years ago. Isn't that like me blaming you for what your great-great-great-great-great grandfather did to my great-great-great-great-great grandfather so long ago? Get over it. As for the rest of your BS: You also presume the God concept of the 1776 Freemasons is identical to the Christian God you know today, that the words God and Creator had the exact same meaning in their context as the Christian God/Creator in yours. A pretty big presumption considering Masonic rites were the springboard from which Aleister Crowley launched. Count the number 777 for it is the number of a Woman, and her name is Babylon! I didn't say that. I said that some of the Freemasons also worshiped the Christian God. If you bothered to do some research you would find that Freemason membership is open to anyone who believes in a Supreme Being. [link\|http://members.iglou.com/gollum/frequent.htm#Religion\|[link\|http://members.iglou.com/gollum/frequent.htm#Religion\|http://members.iglo...htm#Religion]] It is therefore not a religion. But our founding fathers who were freemasons also were Christians, most likely Protestants. There is no "God" of Freemasonry, but the one that the single Freemason believes in. I thought that someone like you would have known that. My line of reasoning was that the Founding Fathers were mostly Christians who were also Freemasons. So therefore their God, or idea of God, would most likely be dirived from the Christian God that they worshiped. I find it impossible to accept the validity of a God who has a burning need to be worshiped, who needs priests to speak his will, and who exhibits personality traits that are all too human. Such a critter is not the "creator of all things". Needs to be worshiped, but doesn't force it on all of us. I believe that is called "Free Will", another one of our Freedoms from God. Preists aren't the only ones who speak God's will, just ask Mother Theresa, or me, or the next guy. God did say that we were created in his image, so maybe God has human traits or rather human beings have some of God's traits, since God had them first? I also find it difficult to consider as Christians people who accept the prepending of the "Old Testament" to the Christian texts. Those are not Christian documents, they were adopted as a convenience to justify an authoritarian church structure for a religion that properly has none, and to condone acts that Jesus would never have condoned. They are history, and about the old covenant with human beings that God had. The human beings broke it a lot, and God sent Jesus to fix things. Who are you to say if Jesus would have condoned or not acts in the Old Testiment? You don't even know him, and it is apparent by your words that you did not study the Christian Bible that close. Besides we have three sides to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Sure maybe the son might not condone those acts, but the Father might, plus you sure haven't read the book of Revilations did you? Jesus does all sort of stuff in there that you would not attribute to his character. Do I speak for God? I speak in a way that God would want me to, and I speak in a way that I feel things should be. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,502 by Ashton 7/4/02 10:30:28 PM Reply	Fervor noted; it fails. But no, "they are not" Good/Bad 'People'. There almost Never is a thoroughy -either one- of these Huge opposite Ideas. People are Not: your idea of what these labels might mean - to You. Your/our/some person's personal judgment of a one, another? some "descendants"? of This n'That Race, Tribe, Group. THESE are what is 'actual' - at least to your average homo-sap, when s/he uses such lofty ideas as if She Knew What they might mean in some Objective sense! People indeed do bad, good things, but always those words are in larger/smaller contexts - not Absolute. And as to what is ephemeral, forever in the realm of the insubstantial, unprovable and weightless/massless [like say, love]? Choose to call that Mystery God if it pleases you to do so. Nevertheless, your didactic assertion of your personal acquaintance with Truth.. is as wearisome as it was.. to the folks burned at the stake for having a Different View of the Mystery that: there is Life. (At All) You Still Don't Get It! Don't Get what 'It' is: for anyone except those with whom you choose to bond, and whose infinitely reconstructed filigrees upon "God's Personality, Her Wishes, Whims and Peculiarities" - form the core of your fantasy about all Life n'Stuff... at least as far as you can imagine that. FWIW: we non-Christians do not despise (your fantasy of) Jesus, nor even much of what thousands of revisions: suggest he might have 'said' in some language (?) In fact many of 'us' find much to admire.. for it's being so familiar from previous wisdom already around the planet. What I despise mainly is: the now ingrained 'Christian'-folks' sanctimonious disregard of the wisdom of ages, spread amongst legions of other homo-saps. I despise this utterly-pure disrespect and thus Disregard for the rights of other homo-saps. Concentrated, this Disregard set the stage for a couple millennia of pointless wars. A lot like Microsoft in their word-usage they have been..'One True God' indeed. We're Right ergo all Others Wrong << you may sit on That one and spin, brother Orion. Obviously this ultimate Disregard thrives among the militant few of other religions too: the common thread is the Fundamentalist within any of those, and I note that your Absolute pronouncements from time to time, are precisely from that mindset: You Know Fershure. You will not be capable of imagining that 'The Good' may well appear quite beyond your own powers to discriminate -- let alone (your imaginations of) 'The Bad'. In that you have lots of company; it is what got us where we are today: ..about to nuke Something - and with all the unknowable consequences as will follow. Because -entirely- of the millions of mindsets just like yours. Obviously your siblings greatly outweigh the tiny minority which recognize what humanity might become? - if the 'Righteous' are restrained a bit longer, from the aim to "convert everyone to My Belief or kill them." You wanna preach? then prepare for back-atcha - every time. Only the imminent threat of death, monarchical + Papal power and the ever rarity of actual Heroes - caused the Xian Debate to be delayed for.. so... long.... Nowadays, one need not expect immediately to be burned (after initial sexual pawing of the females, to look for Debbil Marks) for disagreement with your exact-homo-sap modelled Sociopath (God + Son + Spirit) allinOne. Let us prey. Ashton PS - nothing personal Orion, at all. As to 'blame' for "thousands of years" (?) no blame until you demonstrate a willingness to behave still, just as They did. So when you start regurgitating familiar material, inculcated in you from childhood on, and "telling us" it is Cosmic-Fact and 'God Told You to spread it around': it's the same as en garde. Expect touch\ufffd.
Post #44,508 by static 7/5/02 12:03:56 AM Reply	Pull your horns in, Ashton. I never thought I'd say this, but your anti-Christian rhetoric has grown in recent months and it is starting to get annoying. At the very least you make the classic mistake of citing past mis-deeds of the Church and therefore disdaining all contact with them. (Many people actually in the Church regret those sort of things in history, FWIW.) Besides, this has all gone rather OT. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,514 by Ashton 7/5/02 3:41:26 AM Reply	Hmmm - seeing horns too - a Freudian slip? I believe that 'anti-Fundamentalist' rhetoric is a valid weapon against the tides of viciousness currently made palpable via 9/11 and by many responses to that. Rhetoric beats nukes every time. And I will as I choose: repond to posts which proselytize for a mindset I deem dangerous to its non-Believers, from my experience on this planet. As to confusing "all-Christians" with Fundamentalists - I accept that if you preach it you mean it. Self-described Christians I can see on the Telly any late-night, actively inciting opprobrium (and some - overt violence in God's Name\ufffd, including elsewhere: hit lists with addresses.) That is, violence against people whose sexual preferences are not in accord with their own, or against people who seek legal abortions for their own reasons (and violence against their doctors). Theirs is a Fundamentalist literal reading of Their Book\ufffd - and these are people willing to force their religious belief upon others, fatally - as occurs periodically here. Dunno about Oz. These are fair game in My Book\ufffd. The preachings of others, not demonstrably vicious in action - is merely annoying (your word) and I can "live with" that annoyance. I am not required to bear it silently, however many times I ignore it. (Were I a homosexual or an abortionist, that "living with" part.. would be a debatable expectation, here and now.) Are non-Fundamentalist Christians entirely exempt from their history? Has there been some sort of mass epiphany of late re. respecting the rights of others not to be harangued about Hell, Pestilence, Original built-in Sin and especially about - "having the Wrong God" - which I have missed? Lastly - whether it is Fundamentalist fantasy or general Christian fantasy (?) I notice more frequent mention of, "Rapturing Out" in the "Endtimes" - as this idea becomes discussed in popular organs; these are folks anxious to Get This Word Out! I suggest that these ideas rather underscore the disdain which such Believers maintain for - any 'Christian' who just might not "make the Cut". (Never mind what is thought of, the legions of Doomed Millions? Billions?? who aren't even.. Christians squabbling for a ticket!) So never mind 'past history' wherein your predecessors made some thousands of mistakes fatal to others, folks: I am looking at present Christians aiming for a self-fulfilling prophecy - some even bragging about "helping to make it so" (no doubt in God's name). Such intentionally suicidal actions can affect many others on the planet - on which I am also a passenger. Now that IS annoying, and requires defense. The offense is already there. Ashton
Post #44,532 by static 7/5/02 8:10:56 AM Reply	I might have been in a less than charitable mood. Basically, I didn't like the tar on the brush you were wielding. I'm not over on the Fundamentalist end of the spectrum, I'm not rabidly anti-Muslim (or anti-Arab), I don't agree with the way the televangelists work and in fact don't like them calling themselves "Christian", I don't approve of certain sexual lifestyles, but I don't condone violence against such people either. About abortion I don't have an opinion and as I've already said, enforcing a religious choice is always counter-productive. Sure, the fundamentalists are worth railing against. But a "scatter-gun" approach gets innocent bystanders, too. Current teaching in all of the churches I know is not about forcing a point of view down the victim's throat. A list of "Do-Nots" has been out of fashion for years and the jargon should be kept to a minimum when talking with those outside the church! Can you accept that perhaps you happen to know a self-confessed Christian who also dislikes most of the things you dislike about popular "Christians"? Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,543 by orion 7/5/02 10:55:37 AM Reply	Way I see it, hate the sin, love the sinner. Don't hate people for their sins, love them, but hate the sins. People can do better and become better if they want to. Nobody can stop sinning, but they can reduce the sins and try to do better later on. Yes we are against abortion, but I don't think we should press that on everybody else. Yes we are against terrorism, but that doesn't mean we are Anti-Arab or Anti-Muslim. So many myths and lies about Christianity around here, makes me sick. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,564 by Ashton 7/5/02 4:43:40 PM 7/5/02 5:44:08 PM Reply	Yes, indeed. As the chestnut goes.. some of my best friends.. :-) It is as stupid to imagine that "All Christians Suck" as it would be to imagine that "All non-Christians are Saints - except they don't like that descriptive word". Obviously. I'm sure you are correct re the modified (and mollifed) teaching of late in many denominations, the earnest revulsion of much that has been done "in His Name" in more ignorant eras.. and the general folly of that hubris which presumes that Righteousness comes via professing me-too to a certain Credo one has memorized. Much would have to have been toned down, for modern ears (?) But it remains in 'Scripture'.. and for (too) many: that is deemed a license to play a really sick OT-God, homo-sap version. Fundamentalists of any stripe are a quite Other matter. I'm not at all comfortable with the fact that: rarely do I ever see a Christian actively disavowing the horrendous rantings of (here: it is often "late-night" on Tee Vee or radio) those who Will "tell you what the Bible Really Means". I see that you may Not have a C-Gestapo which 'corrects' the infirm and deranged via their own methods (fun as that sounds). But as with errant MDs - another "service provider" - there are at least provisions for defrocking those who kill too many too quickly, via methods seen to have been deranged. No, these don't work very well (here) either - but they are at least "on the books". << In brief, where has been the funding for Counter- air time, from honest Christians: explaining that it is NOT nice to post hit-lists and to incite mouth-breathers to ~'Kill a Queer for Christ' ?? Silence is ever taken to be tacit acquiescence. It's a lot of trouble, some expen$e to mount a 'counter' to the veritably offensive - but such opposition could be only much more effective, were some actual Christians to stand up and say [cleaned up, natch]. "This jackal is a POS, has entirely mangled the meaning of our tenets and is spewing hatred from his own personal Hell right here in River City. You may NOT go out and kill people 'for God': Got It? Good. ..And it will take more than some Hail Marys for you to atone for your acts of shame, Oh gullible jerks!" (first draft) Seems to me this Would be "the Christian thing to do" [??] {sigh} (Anyway, I'm sure that, had you met one Father Miller MB Sale - in another Time - we both would have concurred about a Christian speaking no less than wisdom, while also daring to debunk pure sht.) Lastly, my philosophical objections to the main model doesn't cut any ice vs anyone else's. Homo saps are entitled to any bizarre drum beat they like to march to: until they cross the line into political actions, vicious actions and exhorting to same* - which Are in my province to oppose - especially when they append, "God Told Me to Do It" Y'know? Ashton PS - re the list of things on your 'disapproval list' I Know whatcha mean.. Personally, I disapprove of the heard-of-hearing folks' lame 'excuse'. Obviously God wants Everyone to hear == The Same Exact Way. (Those with too little Faith just won't exercise the proper Willpower in order to behave as God intended they behave.) We must Help them to Change. Same deal with those clods who can't carry a tune but like to paint n'stuff... Yeah they say they just Can't Do It, but it's just an excuse to evade listening to the hymns properly. If they really loved God: They Could Change Themselves, but - maybe with the help of some Righteous trainers: it can be just as-if they were never born (the way in fact They Were Born). Now as to the celebrity National Figures of Greed Who !? is Helping Them to see their Sins? No funding for this project??? ...But plenty for remanufacturing queers.. better than New? Who Decides this stuff ?? Are you On that Committee? Why no action? Are Some Sins more Popular than Others -- so they get the funding for correctional efforts? Then there's wife-beating - when She won't stay in her Place. Funding for that one? As large as the queer correction project? Y'know? (Any more on your short list?) Edited by Missing User 70 July 5, 2002, 05:44:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #44,511 by orion 7/5/02 1:57:33 AM Reply	Have not the heavens cried? Good/Bad 'People'. There almost Never is a thoroughy -either one- of these Huge opposite Ideas. People are Not: your idea of what these labels might mean - to You. Your/our/some person's personal judgment of a one, another? some "descendants"? of This n'That Race, Tribe, Group. Sometimes people believe they are doing the right thing, when in actuality they are doing something bad or evil. There are many classic cases, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Rome feeding Christians to the lions, Gingus Khan, etc. Bad usually equals selfish and destructive behavior, or behavior that harms others. Sometimes when one is harmed, such as the 9/11 attacks, one has to inflict more harm to prevent future harm. This is why the terrorist camps are being attacked. Even Jesus threw out the money-changers from the temple. Boy was he ticked off about that. Anyway off track, but it is not a war against a religion or race or tribe or group of people, it is a war against terrorism and terrorists. You know the terrorist network that took out the twin WTC towers in New York. If that isn't stone cold bad/evil actions, I don't know what is. What I despise mainly is: the now ingrained 'Christian'-folks' sanctimonious disregard of the wisdom of ages, spread amongst legions of other homo-saps. I despise this utterly-pure disrespect and thus Disregard for the rights of other homo-saps. Concentrated, this Disregard set the stage for a couple millennia of pointless wars. A lot like Microsoft in their word-usage they have been..'One True God' indeed. We're Right ergo all Others Wrong << you may sit on That one and spin, brother Orion. It is in one of the ten commandments, we shall worship no other God or idol. We shall not be forced to do so. Because of "Free Will" other homo-saps have the right to choose whatever religion or lack therof that they want. I am not saying only we are right and all others are wrong, I am just saying that I feel that what I believe is the truth as far as I know it. I could be wrong I could be right, I have a feeling that I am right. I do know that there is some truth to some other religions, like Buddism were they try not to cause suffering and do what they can to avoid suffering. There is a part of the truth there that also meshes with some of Jesus' teachings to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Obviously your siblings greatly outweigh the tiny minority which recognize what humanity might become? - if the 'Righteous' are restrained a bit longer, from the aim to "convert everyone to My Belief or kill them." Where did I say that, where did Jesus say that? Convert everyone to our belief or kill them? I only convert those that want to be converted. My brother-in-law for example is Buddist, one of my friends is a Techno-Pagan, I am not out to convert or kill them. This is yet another falsehood about Christianity that we are out to convert or kill. That is not true. That is not our mission. I feel it is a cheap shot, and it hurts me very deeply when someone says that. Burning at stakes, happened a long time ago. *PS - nothing personal Orion, at all. As to 'blame' for "thousands of years" (?) no blame until you demonstrate a willingness to behave still, just as They did.* Am I not behaving now? Did I threaten to burn you at the stake or go on a rampage to the holy land? Should I blame the Pagans for what the Roman Empire did to early Christians? Should I blame the Native Americans who killed the early Christian missionaries who came to preace the word in the new world? Or do I just say it is all in the past and learn to forgive? I choose the later. Finally I am ticked off at all the AntiChristian sayings going around here as of recently. There have been a lot of untrue sayings and a lot of hurtful sayings. I could do the same to your religions, but I choose not to. I just won't stoop that low. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,516 by Ashton 7/5/02 4:23:50 AM Reply	Re: Have not the heavens cried? You don't believe me when I say that I can separate 'you' from - material you quote, and which I have heard over a lifetime. Your detailed explanations of "What God Wants Us to Do" are as familiar to me as they are to you - I have heard them all. Those words are not-you anymore than a fav Shakespeare quote of mine - is-me. You learned them as a child. Your 'belief' in their literal validity: is neither my business nor something I expect to be told about: especially expressed as General revealed Truth. This thread is not OT: It is a living reminder of what occurs when - people ignore the Constitution in order to insert their own personal "Belief words" into the expressions of a large group of people who have consented ONLY to be 'governed' by certain uniformly applied secular rules: NOT by Your or My or Anyone's! 'God'-belief.. As you cannot, apparently see the Difference - I don't think I could explain it to you One more time, with any greater success. But if you need further clarification re whether I? imagine that you? don black clothes at night, slip out with a list of queers or abortionists to assassinate, and your Weatherby Magnum + silencer (and maybe some aflatoxin for my well) Nahhh. It ain't in you, or you're a master chameleon wordsmith. I accept that you Love God and don't see why anyone else should not love the same Him in the Same Way. Alas.. others find that the extra baggage which goes along with the rest of your chosen Doctrine: is pointed directly at their Own peace, tranquility and rights to Not do things the Same Way. (Ask the surviving family and friends of any dead queer or doctor - killed via a deranged person executing God's Will via His Book\ufffd) ..which, I believe: was the matter which began the threads attempting to deal with the phrase, "Under God" - inserted into a Pledge to be rote-read by All US public schoolchildren. I'll likely trust you with the car keys, wallet and much else - but not with my immortal or other soul; y'know? Ashton Father forgive them for they know not what they say/do..
Post #44,545 by orion 7/5/02 11:14:20 AM Reply	Still not me, you are still confusing me for others. But if you need further clarification re whether I? imagine that you? don black clothes at night, slip out with a list of queers or abortionists to assassinate, and your Weatherby Magnum + silencer (and maybe some aflatoxin for my well) You know I am opposed to violence, heck I even helped Desitter get out of a violent situation quite some time ago. I worked with people who were homosexual, I've known women who had abortions, but I don't try to kill them for it. I may not like their lifestyle or choice to abort their baby, because it is against my religion, but I don't hold it against them either. Hate the sin, love the sinner. There are some things I have no control over. I think you are confusing me for other people, somehow I have falled into a stereotype that you have for Christians. Nahhh. It ain't in you, or you're a master chameleon wordsmith. I accept that you Love God and don't see why anyone else should not love the same Him in the Same Way. Alas.. others find that the extra baggage which goes along with the rest of your chosen Doctrine: is pointed directly at their Own peace, tranquility and rights to Not do things the Same Way. (Ask the surviving family and friends of any dead queer or doctor - killed via a deranged person executing God's Will via His Book\ufffd) I could see why others do not love God the way I do. We have had some Christians who did some bad things. But don't judge us all over the actions of a few. I don't, for example, judge all Muslims by what a dozen of them did to the WTC. I don't judge Pagans over the few that used to beat the crap out of me in Junior High School. Not everyone gets the bible, or knows who Jesus really is. Not eveyone has experienced what I have, and had been touched spiritually by God. I feel, I know, I have felt the power of God. Others haven't, or don't want to. Others have their own religion and feel they are right about it, just as I am about mine. Yet the difference seems to be that I am a bad person because I am a Christian? WTF? *I'll likely trust you with the car keys, wallet and much else - but not with my immortal or other soul; y'know?* I don't want your soul, I think you got me confused with the Devil or something. You do what you think is best. Just don't go slamming my religion or person because of my religion choice. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,565 by Ashton 7/5/02 5:18:14 PM Reply	It's easy, actually. In a discussion of why some may find odious (?) a reference to "Under God" within Government prose - it is a stretch for you to quote personal dogma as-if Universal Fact. The place for expressing convictions (and then: only if you also wish to receive umm "counter-examples"?) is in the Religion forum. <<< Otherwise, it is not only presumptuous - it is also YAN stark reminder of just how many Muricans really don't know of or do not understand their 'Own' Constitution -- it is even a kind of Proof of that fact. Finally - yes in fact, many who label themselves as you do - commit crimes and justify these acts as "doing God's Will" - because they read something in Scripture and they have taken it literally because they also do not know what the word metaphor means. (And they are quite Sure that they Know what God Wants. yada.. yada.. yada..) (Take my remarks about your theology personally, Only if you believe I am a nutter who wishes to see every 'Christian' eviscerated by Righteous anti-Christian God-Squads, doing the AntiChrist's Holy Work..) Ashton Pussycat "Loving Sinners" is a fun game: when you get to find them Righteously Guilty\ufffd by your Rulez, ain't it? (We call that: condescension;-)
Post #44,694 by CRConrad 7/7/02 5:46:08 PM Reply	Oh Ferfuxxake, learn to read bloody English, you moron!
Post #44,709 by orion 7/8/02 12:45:19 AM Reply	Enlighten me. It is not bloody English, but Ashton English, which can be as clear as mud somedays. Hello to you too! So please, enlighten me as to what the heck he actually did say? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,719 by Andrew Grygus 7/8/02 2:56:42 AM Reply	Ashton uses an awful lot of words . . . . which can be confusing if his threads exceed available memory (humans aren't blessed with virtual storage to disk). I use fewer words. If you make *any* claim whatever to knowledge of "The will of God", directly or by implication, you are delusional or a fraud.. In no way is it credible that the "Will of God" can be understood or interpreted from so inadequate a platform as a human persoana. Extrapolation upward from a questionable foundation is clearly invalid. Any being with understanding at that level would no more attempt to explain it to humans that I would to explain quantum physics to the pigoons out behind my house - and just as much attention would be paid - their concerns are different. To believe that anything written in a book is "The Word of God" is gulabilty completely beyond the pale. Books are written by men with axes to grind, then edited and revised by men with different axes. Projecting and/or imposing your "Will of God" on others is Sin - perhaps the only True Sin. See Irish history for definition of "beyond the pale". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,724 by ben_tilly 7/8/02 7:42:06 AM Reply	Ironic You accurately explain why I think that people should not presume to explain what God's Will is. And then you proceed to state that a particular thing, imposing your beliefs about God's Will on others, is a sin. But stating what is or is not a sin is stating something about God's Will, contrary to what you said that humans cannot do. And you are also trying to impose this belief about God's Will on others (or at least on Norm). In other words you just tried to do what you explained humans should not presume to do, and your act is exactly what you just pontificated is a sin! :-) Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #44,727 by Ashton 7/8/02 8:30:30 AM Reply	Doth the gentleman protest too much? Only ironic if one missed a likely intention. Must irony always be explained to an imagined LCD, lest it ever might.. be taken for the literal? (And.. who decides?) Or was yours.. ironic-literalness too? Oooh - triple entendre! Ashton PS the word sin, last I heard, IS an only-Christian conception (most often heard in the Original Sin\ufffd form, as in 'born that way'; Catch22) Analysis can get so confusing, once we parse to the gluons :-\ufffd
Post #44,730 by orion 7/8/02 9:02:05 AM Reply	There lies a problem if we are not to know God's Will, how are we to do God's Will? Am I using The Force or something? Doing God's Will without knowing God's Will? Therefore without knowing it, I am doing God's Will by posting in favor of God. Or maybe I know just a small part of God's Will and it has somehow driven me a bit crazy? :) *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,739 by jb4 7/8/02 10:25:50 AM Reply	Re: There lies a problem You got it! The best we can hope for is Man's interpretation (no..that's not right, either...not "Man's interpretation", but rather, "a man's interpretation") of God's Will. Meditate on that, Grasshopper, and you may come to understand the utter futility of Organized Religion, and instead promote yourself to Faith instead. (A journey of 1000 miles begins with pointing yourself in the right direction before taking hte first step jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #44,744 by Brandioch 7/8/02 10:53:26 AM Reply	God would have no problem communicating his will. The problems come when other humans take it upon themselves to tell other humans what "God's Will" is. What is God's Will for you does not necessarily equate to God's Will for me. Think of building a house. You won't get too far if the plumber converts everyone on the job site to Orthodox Plumbing. You still need carpenters and masons and so forth. The path you find that is right for you is right for you. But it isn't necessarily the path that EVERYONE should follow.
Post #44,754 by jb4 7/8/02 11:21:46 AM Reply	Brandi...how ironic! You still need carpenters and masons and so forth. You could, of course, have been trying to be ironic... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #44,755 by jb4 7/8/02 11:22:32 AM Reply	Brandi...how ironic! You still need carpenters and masons and so forth. You could, of course, have been trying to be ironic... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #44,783 by Brandioch 7/8/02 1:26:05 PM Reply	:) smirk mode: on I cannot help myself. :) It's in my blood.
Post #44,737 by Andrew Grygus 7/8/02 10:13:43 AM Reply	Sin is defined by God? Personally, I'm pretty sure it's defined by man, since I've seen no signed and sealed statements from God that define sin, or Sin - so I'm stating my interpretation - not God's (unless I'm God, which is another matter entirely). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,742 by orion 7/8/02 10:42:12 AM Reply	Sin is defined as disobeying God and his laws. Let me give you an example: The Perfect World (Garden Of Eden) Adam and Eve were told they could do anything, except eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What did they do? They disobeyed God and ate it anyway, in doing so, they Sinned. God did this to show that people will sin even in a perfect world, and that his other creations (Angels, Fallen Angels) would interfer even in a person world (taking the form of a snake). Perhaps you forgot the Ten Commandments written by God onto stone and handed to Moses? You know, the ones saying a lot of "Thou Shalt Not", etc. Like "Thou shalt not steal" "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry", etc, the ones that people ignore anyway. Breaking these commandments is a sin. Then there is Mosaic Law, etc. Without these, people are lawless and become btches and bstards and the world becomes Hell. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,830 by ben_tilly 7/8/02 8:19:10 PM Reply	"as" versus "by" I agree with you that our conception of sin is defined by man. But it is defined as something that is contrary to God's will. There is no contradiction, because lots of men presume to understand God's will. And lots more are willing to blindly accept, eg, the Judeo-Christian mythology. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #44,738 by jb4 7/8/02 10:18:03 AM Reply	Too lazy, but given your hint... ** See Irish history for definition of "beyond the pale". Not sure, but does it have something to do with "strong drink"? jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #44,747 by Andrew Grygus 7/8/02 11:06:26 AM Reply	Well, that might have prvailed "beyond the pale", but . . The English invaders secured an area around Dublin with wooden fortifications (the Pale) to protect "law and order" within from wild Ireland without - thus things weird and wooley became described as "from beyond the pale". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,865 by static 7/9/02 7:25:19 AM Reply	There is nothing I* can say... ... that will change your mind. Because you've clearly already made your mind up about the existence of God. Wade. * or indeed anyone, really. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,928 by Andrew Grygus 7/9/02 2:23:27 PM Reply	I have my opinions . . . . as to the validity of an anthropomorphic "made in our image" God. This makes no sense to me, nor does it make any sense to me that we would understand God's will and/or motives any more than the aformentioned pigeons would understand multiprotocol routers. Their viewpoint is different. Pagan gods in human image were created to illustrate and make easier understanding natural and social forces. Some might seek to propitiate one or another as a means to manipulate such forces to personal advantage, but the fact they are constructed aids to human perception is not hidden. The anthropomorphic One God is constructed in similar fashion, but His purpose is to justify and forgive acts that have no justification and for which forgiveness is inappropriate when viewed from a broad human perspective, and to provide and justify the authority by which a few rule the many. He is a convenience also for insurance companies that wish not to be held liable for damages from events characterized as "Acts of God". Do I then reject possibilities beyond physical reality, or the posibility of higher forms? Clearly no. Physical science leaves too many things unanswered (generally by claiming the question is not valid). I do not, however, consider God as made in our image, nor the other way around (except in a most metaphorical way). Do I reject the concept of a "personal God"? I accept the possibility of higher forms of consciousnesses that take a personal interest even in individuals, but this would not be "God", but "near side" intermediate forms. To think otherwise would be to place severe limits on the scope of God. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,939 by Ashton 7/9/02 3:14:57 PM Reply	Too many words? How about: The lower cannot see the higher. (Imagination.. and especially, the crafting of a custom 'higher' to suit your organizational plan, while seeking comfort from the angst of the unknown: doesn't count)
Post #44,945 by Andrew Grygus 7/9/02 3:43:38 PM Reply	Perfect sense, but sounds too "esoteric". Like when I was with a group discussing the "Seth" books which were popular back then - I remarked that Aleister Crowley had covered all that material in a paragraph or two, and quoted. Blank stares - and I wasn't invited back. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,948 by Ashton 7/9/02 4:16:44 PM Reply	As A. Einstein said, things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. 'Esoteric' sayings may point towards (by def'n) pithy imaginations of unknowable Truths. This does not prohibit anyone from coopting any one of them and embroidering that with McDoggerel - surely an omnipresent activity in the Ad/Bizness Thingie with which we have replaced what used to be called a culture. (Puritanism.. The Search for Prurience, mostly?) Since esoteric Means hidden: how more apt can ya get? Remember, when speaking of the infinite it is impossible to exaggerate... Ashton The EZ revealed as boring. The Difficult made more fun. The Impossible left alone.
Post #44,954 by Brandioch 7/9/02 5:55:36 PM Reply	Understanding vs Control Like you thought you'd get away without me interjecting my viewpoint. :) "Understanding" is easy/impossible. That is where the simply "Truths" are. That which is, is. Control is when it gets complicated. The various rules for should/should not and how to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
Post #44,960 by Ashton 7/9/02 7:30:10 PM Reply	Control.____Hmmm___ a seed! Good word / image. Extrapolation is fun - I believe that there are always a very few around, who have grokked to fullness [is as good as any]. Believe also that these are invariably ones entirely disinterested in 'control' or any variant - that is, among the few who ever come to be noticed by many other people at all. Wisdom appears to be a nontransferable attainment. Control implicitly imagines that ~ "one may 'understand' enough to devise a system, force people to abide by certain Boolean-like rules" - and you can call this life and, "a society". Yet in a world in which all our metaphors are about 'opposites', no such set of rules ever satisfies more than just 'most'; frequently a lot fewer - and people are changeable in their wants. So war is our constant vocation (and our model for a business and often.. for a social avocation too). Organized religions are supposed to fill-in for the missing knowledge, thus the missing understanding. Having been devised by men, to attempt to soothe the angst of not Knowing - those too fail on all counts - including ignoring of the gender differences in certain innate qualities of homo-sap. So I believe that the entire idea of 'control' is a chimera, is associated only with the crudest possible definitions of 'life': the struggle to get More than anyone around you, thus to accumulate indefinitely. ie Greed redefined as 'progress'. And so it goes. Funny species, no? Ashton who now returns control of your mind to the bearer, or its surrogate. Not responsible for misapplication of any rules. None of the characters represent anyone alive or dead. Not responsible for merchantability or fitness to purpose of the product.
Post #45,005 by static 7/10/02 3:30:39 AM Reply	Notes. The "Acts of God" line in insurance contracts is, to my thinking, a clearer than usual example of a historical holdover being used as a cop-out. So we agree on that. Putting that one aside... I can see you have a problem with labelling some sort of "higher-being" as "God". I can understand that. As has been demonstrated in this thread, the very word "God", capitalisation and all, in English carries with it quite a lot of meaning far exceeding it's three humble letters. That seems to be largely the same issue Ashton has with it. I have taught myself over the years to distinguish between the various things attributed to "God" and done in his name over the centuries and between organisations, which is why I objected to Ashton earlier. So permit me to opine that I suspect you may be closer to the truth than you think you are. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,741 by CRConrad 7/8/02 10:38:40 AM Reply	Frankly, I don't think I can. I don't believe anyone can. If you aren't up to deciphering actually (at least semi-)coherent sentences in plain English -- albeit somewhat long and convoluted -- by now, then I think some basic prerequisites are just plain missing. Therefore, I would suggest: Next time you see a post by Ashton, if you aren't one-hundred-percent sure you understand what he's talking about, then just don't reply to it. OK, I'll make an exception -- only this once, so DON'T repeat this! -- and explain what he said: But if you need further clarification re whether I? imagine that you? don black clothes at night, slip out with a list of queers or abortionists to assassinate, and your Weatherby Magnum + silencer (and maybe some aflatoxin for my well) He is asking whether you need a clarification of something, or stating a conditional. Like, "What? If _I_ think that _you_are_ a black-clothed abortionist-assassin?" And then he goes on to answer it, Nahhh. It ain't in you But there you go, droning on and on about how you're not a black-clothed abortionist-assassin: You know I am opposed to violence, heck I even helped Desitter get out of a violent situation quite some time ago. I worked with people who were homosexual, I've known women who had abortions...blah, blah, blah. HE FUCKING _S_A_I_D_ HE DID _N_O_T_ THINK YOU ARE!!! Erhgho: Posting a long litany about how you aren't, is moronic. Oh, and BTW: Please stop spewing that fucking adolescent-level homility everywhere; your particular brand of it is just too revoltingly saccharine -- and above all, naive -- to stomach. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,513 by JayMehaffey 7/5/02 3:27:16 AM Reply	Founding fathers It is therefore not a religion. But our founding fathers who were freemasons also were Christians, most likely Protestants. There is no "God" of Freemasonry, but the one that the single Freemason believes in. I thought that someone like you would have known that. My line of reasoning was that the Founding Fathers were mostly Christians who were also Freemasons. So therefore their God, or idea of God, would most likely be dirived from the Christian God that they worshiped. It's a resonable line of thinking Orion, but it's wrong. The founding fathers where mostly Deists, Unitarians or refused to comment on the subject. The Deist line of belief has mostly died out, but it was basicly a form of psuedo-Christian Agnosticism. Deists believed that God had created the universe, but had not interfered since then. This specificly meant denying everything in the New Testement and the majority of the Old Testement. Unitarians are roughly the same today as they where back then. Which is to say it amounts to people that have given up Christianity but havn't been able to break themselves of the habit of going to church every Sunday. As for the ones that would not speak, it's pretty obvious they where either agnostic or outright atheists. Any atheist would have had to keep their mouths shut to stay in politics, but there are some Chrstian sects that avoid talking about religion also. So you can't really be sure with them. This might seem fairly surprising, but what few people realize is just how much the religious character of the US has changed over the years. When the country was founded less then 10% of the population when to church on a regular basis. This number has steadily gone up as the Christians have steadily complained about it's decline. Jay
Post #44,933 by snork 7/9/02 2:38:54 PM Reply	OT: Unitarians Unitarians are roughly the same today as they where back then. Which is to say it amounts to people that have given up Christianity but havn't been able to break themselves of the habit of going to church every Sunday. A workmate of mine attends a Unitarian church. While discussing some of the typical meetings and topics of discussion, it seemed to me that the Unitarian church was a place for atheists to come and socialize on Sundays. I mentioned this to him and he burst out laughing and agreed. The joke was quite a hit at his next Sunday meeting. :) "With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters Cliff
Post #44,200 by altmann 7/2/02 3:20:38 AM Reply	Declaration vs. Constitution We may have declared our independence with the former, but we defined this country with the later. [link\|http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/toc.html\|The Constitution] -- Chris Altmann
Post #44,221 by ChrisR 7/2/02 10:29:25 AM Reply	The God of the Declaration is not necessarily Christian... One must remember that the American Revolution was fought in the aftermath of the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries). Many of the intellects of this period were Deists (not Christian), who believed in God, the Creator, but believed that God did not intervene in the world, nor in human affairs. The wording of the Declaration reflects this cosmology - God created every man with basic rights. These rights were revealed not through the Bible, but were basic inalienable rights - i.e. the Law of Nature - that were obvious to those of the age by means of reasoning. [link\|http://www.media-visions.com/tompaine.html\|Paine] was intrigued by the philosophes, the French social thinkers and encyclopedae creators who upheld scientific reasoning over irrational religious dogma. They posited that the mind is great, capable of knowing anything in time with diligent research. They saw the cosmos as the creation of one rational God who set the universe in motion with natural laws at work, like winding the precision clockwork, then turning humanity loose to govern ourselves by becoming educated enough to exercise our free will with self restraint within democratic laws. These thinkers called themselves "deists." Defined by Webster's dictionary as "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but who denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." Many were freemasons or members of other pro-democracy secret societies, such as the fabled Sons of Liberty. Deist thinking was not welcomed by Church nor State, but the ideas appealed to educated people of all classes. The Enlightenment, as we name it today, swept through 18th century intellectual culture like the peace movement swept through the youth culture in the 1960s.
Post #44,277 by Ashton 7/2/02 5:06:56 PM Reply	I'd approx. buy that interpretation - Any approach which pisses of both Organized Religion AND State: can't be all bad. (I would protest however that, Eisenhower's implicit 'meaning' was unlikely to have been this philosophical -- and bet more that, the entire thesis falls dully on the ears of Joe Sixpack) Honesty would be: keep all God-words Out of government speech. Period. Ashton
Post #44,370 by jb4 7/3/02 2:18:37 PM Reply	So THAT'S why... ...All the epithets against anybody who's not a WASP includes a throwaway about Freemasons! Never quite understood that (as most Freemasons I know are indistinguishable from most WASPs I know). Thanks for the Enlightenment! jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #44,398 by Ashton 7/3/02 4:13:43 PM Reply	No relationship. 'Freemasonry' is hardly definable in simple one syllable words, and I won't attempt a definition. Religion it is not. An esoteric worldview? A metaphysical view? Take yer pick - but WASP it ain't. (Any more than the Rosicrucians, say..) Ashton
Post #44,489 by orion 7/4/02 8:29:16 PM Reply	A fraternity, not a religion. [link\|http://www.freemason.org/site/faq.htm#a7\|[link\|http://www.freemason.org/site/faq.htm#a7\|http://www.freemaso...e/faq.htm#a7]] Read the FAQs, quite educational. You all think you know what being a Freemason is all about? I am showing that most of you don't know the first thing. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #44,493 by Ashton 7/4/02 8:55:40 PM Reply	Nor will you see on that site Refs to any of the 'esoteric' wings, nor a description of any consequence.. about what is implicit in the -Degrees "ladder". When you imagine that a Website '02 shall reveal to you the substance of the say, "commonality of aim?" of the Founding Mothers: you've Missed it. Whoever's sig used to contain: ~~ Two things that are Important in Life: 1) Don't tell everything that you know. by Tan Sat? or a homonym
Post #44,714 by Brandioch 7/8/02 1:19:10 AM Reply	OTO, baby! Meanwhile, back at the ranch............... Here's a "history" of Freemasonry. I've been told more about it from a member. But I can't tell what is historical and what is myth. [link\|http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/templars.htm\|Freemasonry] It does tend to shed a slightly different light on the subject.
Post #44,725 by Ashton 7/8/02 8:07:43 AM Reply	You aren't supposed to! (be able to tell) :-\ufffd That is, and for (I think) all obvious reasons: no group's "esoteric wing" is ever going to advertise its existence or generally even.. admit there is such a thing. As with churches - most of the action and the pitches are about socializing; any 'philosophy' is cut & dried, with study groups for those who want some expansion of material. Notice that in US - there is hardly ever any reference even to the word esoteric/hidden in connection with the popular religious Corporations (those with massive land and other property holdings). Offhand, I think that the usual info about the Masons - as with the Sufis (say) tends to be predictably of two sorts: "it's just a fraternal order like the Elks" and/or "there are secret hierarchies.. too". Naturally (this being the US) it's assumed that wealth determines membership in these 'optional' castes. If there are any. It's probably deemed just fine if - people imagine that there is little difference among UFO, Black Helicoper stuff and - any such orgs. (If there are such orgs. ;-) Catch 23: "those who say don't know; those who know don't say" is no mere slogan. But one thing we can be Sure of, homo-saps being involved (!) is that - many more will say they know about ___ than know shit about anything - since so many folks love to be Seen to know stuff. [cackle] (Makes 'research' a tad inconclusive, no?) My take is that, anyone with a literal mindset will find precisely what they Know is there: Nothing at all. But the real question is: for those who really wanted to find out if there is anything to discover .. (?) Well, nobody ever said it was s'posed to be ez, now did they? Maybe it's just as well too; as with the Frank & Ernest cartoon in the diner: Big Sign over a huge kettle, Do Not Stir the Soup. Frank asks the guy, "why not?". "Because Sir.. you would not like what you would see, Sir." Ashton what me worry?

Welcome to IWETHEY!