Still not me, you are still confusing me for others.

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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!