Originally posted by FORESTNYMPHNo shouting in the forest, please.
SATAN IS EVEN NICER THAN YOU - SO I DONT THINK YOU GOING ANYWHERE - YOU MISUNDERSTOOD AND SO IS THE REST OF THIS WORLD - SO IF YOU RECKON YOU SOME SORT OF NICE GUY WHY DONT YOU JUST SHUT UP ABOUT WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE IN AND KEEP TO YOUR OWN HELL - OH AND I MIGHT NOT SPELL OK BUT DAMN I SURE CAN PLAY GUITAR WELL - AND ANYWAY IF YOU WANNA GO AROUND URINATIN ...[text shortened]... Y BETTER GO AND SEARCH FOR GUIDENCE WITH IN - CAUSE EVEN GOD KNOWS YOU DONT ARGUE WITH A FOOL đ”
Hello. Do you have a personal relationship with Satan?
(You're not from Fishhoek are you?)
Originally posted by vistesdThe "rightly divided" word of God? I never, ever heard that phrase!"rightly divided"
The [b]"rightly divided" word of God? I never, ever heard that phrase!"rightly divided"
BTW, I recall a similar incident when I was a member of a small Lutheran church in a "dry" county in Tennessee. They were having a similar vote on whether to allow the sale of liquor. Some folks from the community approached our Pastor, and said, " ...[text shortened]... founded, but let it go--I think they had already figured out that us Lutherans were a bit off...[/b]
I believe it means that you get the correct meaning out of scripture.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnother example of the fact of religious individuals being functionally
I have to agree with you, they were coming out against something
that isn't even forbidden in scripture. Yet, it is human nature in my
opinion, to cast some a little support against something feels good.
Righteousness is more than keeping alcohol out of a community,
it has to do with our relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Kelly
insane. Building up what they consider to be self-evident with no
basis in true reality, but instead being led down the path of incredible
mental slavery by individuals whom these religious ones assume
are only driven by the purest motives when in fact the vast majority
of the upper leaders are as corrupt as any mafioso with only feigned
interest in real spirituality and a real quest for spiritual growth, if
indeed there can ever be such a thing. Regardless, these so-called
leaders, examples would be ones like David Coresh, Pat Robertson,
Billy Graham, Saint Paul, Mohammed, they are all of the same ilk, to subvert
the minds of as many people to their way of what they would have you
THINK is their way of life when in fact what they are after is to build
a power base but the followers of these truly deluded individuals
have no clue as to the true nature of their own beings and accept
what they are told about the nature of "God". We can't ever know what
is going on inside anyones mind but our own and not even much of
that so for some person who is percieved as charismatic to be telling
other people what is going on inside the mind of god (if indeed there
is any such thing) and in fact build up large groups of people who have
been duped into believing all the BS put out by such leaders, then
a body of writing starts accumulating, the larger the body of written
text, the more it appears to be absolute fact by the duped individuals
of whatever religion they follow, This is a very good definition
of group insanity. There is one compelling arguement for this, and
the the arguement I am about to use is totally ignored by the followers
of said groups: If a god exists, we assume by definition this god
knows trillions of times more than mere humans therefore we
follow all the rules in a given religion. The problem here is looking
at the rules set up by these religions: THEY CANNOT ALL BE RIGHT
AT THE SAME TIME. It is my firm belief a real god would not set up
conditions commanding group A to kill people not of that faith
and group B to not kill any lifeform ever (the Janes). The blinded
faith cannot see this as a valid arguement and cannot even
be drawn into a discussion of such a concept. It is foreign to the
very basis of each of these insane religions. For instance,
what we call christianity wasn't even invented by Jesus, it was
Paul who convinced other people that Jesus was the lord and did
miracles and the Nicene creed didn't even come along for 400 years
so you see how the real person Jesus had a certain philosophy which
BTW has its roots in Buddhism and instead was perverted into the true
slime of the christian faith. The same can be said of Islam,
people later changing the meaning of the original "prophet"
who was another one out to make a power base having nothing to
do with spiritual reality, he convinced other people he alone has this
solid connection with god and has therefore the right to declare the
concept its commanded to kill people not of his following.
Can't you see this is the definition of "Blind Faith"? You accept the
so-called "teachings" of other people and are convinced that it comes
from some god or other. But These religions CANNOT BE ALL RIGHT,
there are too many contradicting claims of godness to have all come
from one god which even if we only restrict this idea to the main
judao-christian-islam grouping which have the same underlying roots,
not to mention all the other opposing philosophies around the world.
So by definition then, people who follow these corrupt leaders are
by definition functionally insane because they act out deadly
consequenses as if they were coming from a real god when in fact it
is just the blind following the corrupt.
Originally posted by sonhouseJust because they cannot be all right does not mean they are all wrong.
Another example of the fact of religious individuals being functionally
insane. Building up what they consider to be self-evident with no
basis in true reality, but instead being led down the path of incredible
mental slavery by individuals whom these religious ones assume
are only driven by the purest motives when in fact the vast majority
of the uppe ...[text shortened]... as if they were coming from a real god when in fact it
is just the blind following the corrupt.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA view that I call the "Voter's Fallacy". Essentially, since you have multiple candidates in an election and ALL of them cannot be right for the job, you decide that NONE of them is right for the job.
Out of curiosity, Son House, have you ever read William Burroughs? Your views expressed here coincide with his to a great extent.
A personal variant of the Excluded Middle fallacy.
Originally posted by lucifershammeran interesting concept worthy of independent study since I make no
A view that I call the "Voter's Fallacy". Essentially, since you have multiple candidates in an election and ALL of them cannot be right for the job, you decide that NONE of them is right for the job.
A personal variant of the Excluded Middle fallacy.
claims to perfection in the logic department but it strikes me as a
rationalization for being an arguement for the possiblility that at least
"MY" religion is the right one and therefore all the others are false.
Thats the problem using logic to vindicate ones own philosophy.
In fact EVERY religion on earth has a distinct possibility of being
one hundred percent wrong and no amount of logic can get around
that possiblility. You can say, well thats true of ever OTHER philosophy
but in my heart I know MINE is right......
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually I have never read Burroughs, I am thinking maybe I should.
Out of curiosity, Son House, have you ever read William Burroughs? Your views expressed here coincide with his to a great extent.
Maybe I can see other arguements I haven't even thought of, freely
admitting I am no genius. Do you have titles to suggests for me? Also,
what do you think of this Burroughs? I get the question but not sure
of where you are coming from in this.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhere I'm coming from is that I think you might enjoy his take on the kind of corruption you're concerned about--churches, governments, advertising agencies...I enjoy his writing very much, although some of it is very opaque. For you I recommend The Job (talks about his ideas) and Naked Lunch. You might want to google up on his subject matter, though, to see if he's the kind of author you'd enjoy (drugs & homosexuality are part of the territory with Burroughs). He's a great American writer, contemporary of Kerouac, Ginsberg. Corso et al but in my opinion possessed of far more profound insights than them all. He uses addiction as a metaphor for control, and as a scalpel to dissect society in all its loathsomeness.
Actually I have never read Burroughs, I am thinking maybe I should.
Maybe I can see other arguements I haven't even thought of, freely
admitting I am no genius. Do you have titles to suggests for me? Also,
what do you think of this Burroughs? I get the question but not sure
of where you are coming from in this.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSounds like someone worthy of a good study. I agree with people
Where I'm coming from is that I think you might enjoy his take on the kind of corruption you're concerned about--churches, governments, advertising agencies...I enjoy his writing very much, although some of it is very opaque. For you I recommend The Job (talks about his ideas) and Naked Lunch. You might want to google up on his subject matter, though ...[text shortened]... diction as a metaphor for control, and as a scalpel to dissect society in all its loathsomeness.
who try to engender our innate abilities to see the blindness of the
world and not just aim at a pedestal of godness to hang our delusions.
Originally posted by sonhouseHas the term "paragraphs" ever come up in your study?
Another example of the fact of religious individuals being functionally
insane. Building up what they consider to be self-evident with no
basis in true reality, but instead being led down the path of incredible
mental slavery by individuals whom these religious ones assume
are only driven by the purest motives when in fact the vast majority
of the uppe ...[text shortened]... as if they were coming from a real god when in fact it
is just the blind following the corrupt.
Kelly
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagefools should not jump in where angels fear to tread - and maybe i had a personal relationship with him in the past - why you jealous that i used to - remember its my left overs you chewing on - and no i aint from fishoek - i can give out as much as what i receive - within everyone is a dark side so dont go around judging where you cant tread - live and let live - peace love out -
No shouting in the forest, please.
Hello. Do you have a personal relationship with Satan?
(You're not from Fishhoek are you?)
Originally posted by FORESTNYMPHOK. Take it easy.
fools should not jump in where angels fear to tread - and maybe i had a personal relationship with him in the past - why you jealous that i used to - remember its my left overs you chewing on - and no i aint from fishoek - i can give out as much as what i receive - within everyone is a dark side so dont go around judging where you cant tread - live and let live - peace love out -