Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Re: Dear God, Deliver Us from Their Insanity!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:14:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

A televangelist said in an outspoken higher tone seemingly determined but mad tone of voice that anti-god was anti-Christ.

What is wrong with this statement?

If one does not believe in God one cannot believe in Christ. If one actively opposes God, or is anti-God, then one is also anti-Christ. This does not mean that one is the figurative Anti-Christ of Revelations and the end times. Its very logical to me.

Anti-God would be anti-belief. Not believing in God is not believing in God so therefore is anti-belief in God.

If Christian doctrine causes imbalance in a person, it is because they don't understand it or are using it as a mask for their own bad behavior. How it can cause delusions I don't know. As for "Makes a subconscious hate and or societal separation from others, self and group alienation" have you ever witnesses what sports affiliations do to people?

I don't understand how on the one hand you can say Christian beliefs are delusional and irrational on the one hand, but on the other you say you admire them. That is what is illogical and irrational.

Religion isn't about the warm fuzzies or making everyone friends. Religion is about the word of God and how we are expected to live our lives. Christianity does not preach tolerance of everything. If it did there would be no reason for it to exist. Rather it has rules and limits which believers are expected to abide by which will naturally set them apart from non-believers. From what I have seen, the people demanding tolerance are those who's lifestyles would be the most offensive to Christians. The more logical approach would be for those people to be as tolerant of Christians as they demand Christians be tolerant of them. However, the tolerance demanded by them is a one way street.

Certain Baptist preachers are energetic. They are commonly called the Charismatics. I don't place much stock in them. Other Baptist preachers are very sober in their sermons, which is how I think church meetings should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:57:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

Very closed minded and highly illogical.

Not so. Christianity is very logical orderly. It is also humble, though some of the preachers are not. Christ admonished his followers to humility many times.

God the true god would want nothing other then freedom of all things even of God.

Now this statement doesn't make any sense. What is the freedom of God? Does that mean God is whatever a person believes God to be? If that is so, then such a system believes in no God. God is what God is, not what we want God to be.

Humans have created many gods. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and other made up their own gods. These were very human gods that were far from perfect or even moral. Other cultures had gods that demanded human sacrifices. Other human religions include Nazism and Communism, and we have ample evidence as to how bloody they were.

God is not of the mind but the creator of it. If God is nothing more than a figment of the imagination, then why bother? If God is a of the mind, then praying to God is praying to yourself, making a god of yourself.

What better ways are there? Another world religion, one that also sets itself apart from others and is intolerant to one degree or another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:13:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

I've written like it before, those not of belief that are cogent seemingly understand me, however those of belief typically do not.

I don't understand. You say you are not of belief yet object to being called so? I don't get where you are coming from on this, aside from having a very negative view of Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Very closed minded and highly illogical.

This type of belief will die out (slowly go away) eventually and a

more humble one will come to be.

All that is taught here is if I dont believe as you do, I am bad

against you. I have discribed this as a mechenism socio-evolutionarly

as the survival of the belief.

Christ would not call me an anti-christ becuase I am not of the

chains of idiolism to him. God the true god would want nothing other

then freedom of all things even of God. The rest is inteliegently

designed by mind to perserve the collective similarity in comformity.

What is good is good, judge not and ye shall not be judged correct?

Or is there numerious stipulations still that perscirbed

disobiediance to the complexities?

God is of mind, we all have one.

I think it's rude, and madness to call people anti-christ for not

thinking as they do. It's intolerance and just divides unless one is

of it.

Everyone else goes to hell, but that is the brainwashing I know that

for sure.

There are better ways..Much better..I am no anti-christ and anyone

that believes that is not only of delusion but delusional schezo.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:14:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> nathaninfortuna@... writes:

>

> A televangelist said in an outspoken higher tone seemingly

determined but

> mad tone of voice that anti-god was anti-Christ.

>

>

>

> What is wrong with this statement?

>

> If one does not believe in God one cannot believe in Christ. If

one actively

> opposes God, or is anti-God, then one is also anti-Christ. This

does not

> mean that one is the figurative Anti-Christ of Revelations and the

end times.

> Its very logical to me.

>

> Anti-God would be anti-belief. Not believing in God is not

believing in God

> so therefore is anti-belief in God.

>

> If Christian doctrine causes imbalance in a person, it is because

they don't

> understand it or are using it as a mask for their own bad behavior.

How it

> can cause delusions I don't know. As for " Makes a subconscious hate

and or

> societal separation from others, self and group alienation " have

you ever

> witnesses what sports affiliations do to people?

>

> I don't understand how on the one hand you can say Christian

beliefs are

> delusional and irrational on the one hand, but on the other you say

you admire

> them. That is what is illogical and irrational.

>

> Religion isn't about the warm fuzzies or making everyone friends.

Religion

> is about the word of God and how we are expected to live our lives.

> Christianity does not preach tolerance of everything. If it did

there would be no reason

> for it to exist. Rather it has rules and limits which believers

are expected

> to abide by which will naturally set them apart from non-

believers. From

> what I have seen, the people demanding tolerance are those who's

lifestyles

> would be the most offensive to Christians. The more logical

approach would be for

> those people to be as tolerant of Christians as they demand

Christians be

> tolerant of them. However, the tolerance demanded by them is a one

way street.

>

> Certain Baptist preachers are energetic. They are commonly called

the

> Charismatics. I don't place much stock in them. Other Baptist

preachers are very

> sober in their sermons, which is how I think church meetings should

be.

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

What does " idiolism " mean? It looks as if it would sound like

" ID-ee-oh-lizz-um " - a word I have never heard. But, whatever it

sounds like, I cannot find it in any dictionary.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Idolism, sometimes Word does not underline in red the words to I assume

they are correct. Copy and paste between screens I think the pattern is

that when I paste and copy the post to Word it does not do it

automatically.

There are different ways of perceptually understanding the world, very

different ways.I might define in the context intended that the idiol is

the sub-councious psychologically compartmentalized archetype of

christ.

Everyone has a different one though externally it is the same, what is

envisioned of it different and so is doctrin and inner-personal beliefs

of the group philosophy.

It is sort of amix and the subcouncious is the supernatural. The idiol

would then be the christ archetype, but really to even say something

like that to some makes one evil or something.

> What does " idolism " mean? It looks as if it would sound like

> " ID-ee-oh-lizz-um " - a word I have never heard. But, whatever it

> sounds like, I cannot find it in any dictionary.

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite,

http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

ok, I will work on a reply to this but it will take some time to make. I've written like it before, those not of belief that are cogent seemingly understand me, however those of belief typically do not. VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:57:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: Very closed minded and highly illogical. Not so. Christianity is very logical orderly. It is also humble, though

some of the preachers are not. Christ admonished his followers to humility many times. God the true god would want nothing other then freedom of all things even of God. Now this statement doesn't make any sense. What is the freedom of God? Does that mean God is whatever a person believes God to be? If that is so, then such a system believes in no God. God is what God is, not what we want God to be. Humans have created many gods. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and other made up their own gods. These were very human gods that were far from perfect or even moral. Other cultures had gods that demanded human sacrifices. Other human religions include Nazism and Communism, and we have ample evidence as to how bloody they were. God is not of the mind but the creator of it. If God is nothing more than a figment of the imagination, then why bother? If God is a of

the mind, then praying to God is praying to yourself, making a god of yourself. What better ways are there? Another world religion, one that also sets itself apart from others and is intolerant to one degree or another? I'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/

Relax. virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thats false, I do not have a negative view of christians perhaps the truth of my observations do not reflect correctly with you.I have spent hours writting concerning this issue of belief. Perhaps take the time to read it, then you will understand?Dont start problems with me. Unless you want it back.VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:13:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes: I've written like it before, those

not of belief that are cogent seemingly understand me, however those of belief typically do not. I don't understand. You say you are not of belief yet object to being called so? I don't get where you are coming from on this, aside from having a very negative view of Christians. I'm from this planet, the rest of you are

not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/

Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I'm guessing that has no issue with plain belief or a religion per se, only with fanatical preaching and preachers being judgemental towards those outside that particular religion?

Inger

Re: Re: Dear God, Deliver Us from Their Insanity!

In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:13:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nathaninfortuna@... writes:

I've written like it before, those not of belief that are cogent seemingly understand me, however those of belief typically do not.

I don't understand. You say you are not of belief yet object to being called so? I don't get where you are coming from on this, aside from having a very negative view of Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

yes... Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote: I'm guessing that has no issue with plain belief or a religion per se, only with fanatical preaching and preachers being judgemental towards those outside that particular religion? Inger I'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/

Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

:

> Religion isn't about the warm fuzzies or making everyone friends.

Not every religion, no. But didn't Jesus specifically talk about love and compassion, about turning the other cheek and of not judging?

> Religion is about the word of God and how we are expected to live our lives. Christianity does not preach tolerance of everything. If it did there would be no reason for it to exist. Rather it has rules and limits which believers are expected to abide by which will naturally set them apart from non-believers.

But why not just stick to behaving according to recommendations then? Why worry so much about what OTHERS do? Did Jesus not also say something about how easily we focus on and magnify minute faults in others and miss huge ones in ourselves?

> From what I have seen, the people demanding tolerance are those who's lifestyles would be the most offensive to Christians.

I like tolerance but I doubt you'd find much in my current lifestyle to complain about.

> The more logical approach would be for those people to be as tolerant of Christians as they demand Christians be tolerant of them. However, the tolerance demanded by them is a one way street.

True enough. :-)

> Certain Baptist preachers are energetic. They are commonly called the Charismatics. I don't place much stock in them. Other Baptist preachers are very sober in their sermons, which is how I think church meetings should be.

I agree, though that's a matter of personal taste.

Inger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> The more logical approach would be for those people to be as tolerant of Christians as they demand Christians be tolerant of them. However, the tolerance demanded by them is a one way street. I think the mistake here in this logic is that Christianity is one identity terminology but really beyond basic generalities is many. One Christian will not be like the other. Some do not believe supernaturally. Tolerance ultimately is control or not, tolerance could be not to speak in opposition to it or be defined as an anti-Christ’s (is a assault upon a soul and a fear deranging tactic). It’s a built in protective mechanism to preserve itself and not allow without great sinful deed to think for oneself outside of its metaphorical box (its

psycho-metholodologies of fear based control of the soul (mind) ). Humble is, it what humble is. I consider it a great evening out and disillusionment, such as the world not ending in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of it's methodologies and engrained beliefs found in some I find potentially dangerous to the world. While certainly and as I have noted on numerous occasions the benefit is existent. Such as feeding the homeless, the pathological coping mechanisms in hardships, the humanities and good deeds evident world-wide. Is why I am a Christian sympathizer and in general religious or belief sypathizer. I just understand it in a way that few do, I hesitate to say it is superior, rather just as I am. I will write extensively about this, I have even thought about writing something to be published of my own to just say I accomplished a book even if a hundred pages, but it will not be liked by certain mentalities that are more exreme. Like those I listened to on PalTalk.com in voice chats. I visited and observed the believers of many beliefs from around the world. Hitler used God to psychologically enforce he was on the right side and to brainwash others likewise, but God in the mind of others to wonderful deeds for mankind as well. I'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/

Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 3:24:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

Communism was decidedly anti-religion and in the former Soviet Union, many Jews and Christians were persecuted and many churches were destroyed or used for mundane purposes (though not all, fortunately; I saw this with my own eyes when I was in Leningrad/St sburg 1982).

Communism replaces the traditional religious worship of God with worship of the State and of Man. In effect, Communism's god is the state. It is not a god like God, but is more along the lines of Zeus or the other man made gods. The state under Communism is the focus of the people's attention and devotion as the greatest thing in existence, and by extension that the humans who created it are the pinnacle of the universe.

Its a complicated thing to explain, but this idea is not my own and has been explained in detail by others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

:> Other human religions include Nazism and Communism, and we have ample evidence as to how bloody they were.

Excuse me, but they were political movements and not religions.

Communism was decidedly anti-religion and in the former Soviet Union, many Jews and Christians were persecuted and many churches were destroyed or used for mundane purposes (though not all, fortunately; I saw this with my own eyes when I was in Leningrad/St sburg 1982).

Also, the original idea of communism or socialism was simply redistributing wealth more evenly, creating more equality, and doing things communally such as in the kolshose (sp?) or kibbutz rather than individually/family-wise. I'm sure the originators of this ideal did NOT intend for it to become an excuse for power-hungry dictators to rob the people blind, micromanage their lives and kill tens of millions for good measure.

Just like Wagner can't be blamed for Hitler liking his music, Marx & Engels can hardly be blamed for what Lenin & Stalin did with their ideas.

A mix of socialism & capitalism is working just fine here in Sweden, with no one being executed or sent to Gulags that I know of.

None of it has anything whatsoever to do with religion.

Inger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:52:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

Not every religion, no. But didn't Jesus specifically talk about love and compassion, about turning the other cheek and of not judging?

Yes he did. However, there is a bit of misunderstanding here. We all judge all the time and Christians are expected to do so as well. Christians are expected to avoid things that the faith says are wrong and do the things that are right. What Christ probably meant was not to judge people too harshly for the trouble they have found themselves in since we don't know their full circumstances. However, Christ also did say to help people, which means judging if they are in trouble and how to help them.

Christ also said that he did not come to replace the existing law, but to add to it. The earlier Biblical Law lacked forgiveness, which is what Christ delivered.

Tom could probably provide the right quotes, if he has the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:56:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Wait a mo' - the old testament God of Christianity did also require human sacrifice? All that kind of sacrifice was done away with when Jesus was crucified - or that is how I understood it anyway?

Judaism did not require human sacrifices. Quite the opposite, it found such to be abhorrent. I need to brush up on names, but one of the Patriarchs was told to sacrifice his son as a test of his faith, but God stopped him at the last moment. The intent there was never to allow the sacrifice to take place, but just to test the faith.

Christ was a bit different. He was God made flesh so that was God symbolically sacrificing himself for the salvation of Man.

Other groups around the Israelites did practice human sacrifice, like the Philistines and others who worshipped Molach and Bhaal. The Israelites were strongly advised not to have anything to do with those people, especially not to intermarry with them or take up worship of their gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:56:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Wait a mo' - the old testament God of Christianity did also require human sacrifice? All that kind of sacrifice was done away with when Jesus was crucified - or that is how I understood it anyway?

Judaism did not require human sacrifices. Quite the opposite, it found such to be abhorrent. I need to brush up on names, but one of the Patriarchs was told to sacrifice his son as a test of his faith, but God stopped him at the last moment. The intent there was never to allow the sacrifice to take place, but just to test the faith.

Christ was a bit different. He was God made flesh so that was God symbolically sacrificing himself for the salvation of Man.

Other groups around the Israelites did practice human sacrifice, like the Philistines and others who worshipped Molach and Bhaal. The Israelites were strongly advised not to have anything to do with those people, especially not to intermarry with them or take up worship of their gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 9:13:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Even I have a problem with that.I am Christian, but am not fond of some Christians using fear tactics and condeming all to hell - there are nicer approaches.As for tolerance - I thought Jesus did teach tolerance - to my belief yes he did get angry with some things - usually how his church was behaving and believers and yet he was very tolerant of sinners and other outcasts. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt here on tolerance and maybe a very applicable one at the moment?

There is a fine line between fear tactics and addressing the matter of sin. Just because Christ died on the Cross doesn't mean sin ceased to exist. It does and the old standards, like the 10 Commandments, are still in effect.

Christ was tolerant of the outcasts and sinners because those were the people who needed his message of salvation and redemption. He also said to hate the sin but not the sinner, something I view as akin to hating illness but not the person who is sick.

Even that tolerance had its limits, however. To receive salvation and forgiveness of sins, the confession and request for forgiveness must be sincere. If one asks for forgiveness but has every intention of going out and doing the same again and again, then such a request would be invalid.

But the main problem is one of semantics. Most people these days say Tolerance when what they really want is the Acceptance of their Relativistic views, mostly of their own actions which they probably have doubts about. Simply: Tolerance accepts some inappropriate behavior for the sake of the common good while Relativism denies that good has any universal meaning and so accepts all behavior.

Christianity will tolerate some bad behavior is tolerating it gives the chance to help the sinners abandon their sin. My preference is to lead by example and debate rather than haranguing the person about hellfire and damnation.

However, relativistic acceptance of all behavior just doesn't cut it. History shows that that just leads to chaos and the collapse of civilizations. It is not the only cause of course, but rather is a major symptom of a society that has turned its back on the foundations and traditions that built it and no longer has the will to go on, which is why the people turn self-centered, self-destructive hedonism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 3/4/2006 9:13:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Even I have a problem with that.I am Christian, but am not fond of some Christians using fear tactics and condeming all to hell - there are nicer approaches.As for tolerance - I thought Jesus did teach tolerance - to my belief yes he did get angry with some things - usually how his church was behaving and believers and yet he was very tolerant of sinners and other outcasts. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt here on tolerance and maybe a very applicable one at the moment?

There is a fine line between fear tactics and addressing the matter of sin. Just because Christ died on the Cross doesn't mean sin ceased to exist. It does and the old standards, like the 10 Commandments, are still in effect.

Christ was tolerant of the outcasts and sinners because those were the people who needed his message of salvation and redemption. He also said to hate the sin but not the sinner, something I view as akin to hating illness but not the person who is sick.

Even that tolerance had its limits, however. To receive salvation and forgiveness of sins, the confession and request for forgiveness must be sincere. If one asks for forgiveness but has every intention of going out and doing the same again and again, then such a request would be invalid.

But the main problem is one of semantics. Most people these days say Tolerance when what they really want is the Acceptance of their Relativistic views, mostly of their own actions which they probably have doubts about. Simply: Tolerance accepts some inappropriate behavior for the sake of the common good while Relativism denies that good has any universal meaning and so accepts all behavior.

Christianity will tolerate some bad behavior is tolerating it gives the chance to help the sinners abandon their sin. My preference is to lead by example and debate rather than haranguing the person about hellfire and damnation.

However, relativistic acceptance of all behavior just doesn't cut it. History shows that that just leads to chaos and the collapse of civilizations. It is not the only cause of course, but rather is a major symptom of a society that has turned its back on the foundations and traditions that built it and no longer has the will to go on, which is why the people turn self-centered, self-destructive hedonism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" God the true god would want nothing other then freedom of all things

even of God. "

Now I am confused by the above statement. I thought that God =

freedom, that there is freedom within God?

>

> Very closed minded and highly illogical.

>

> This type of belief will die out (slowly go away) eventually and a

> more humble one will come to be.

>

> All that is taught here is if I dont believe as you do, I am bad

> against you. I have discribed this as a mechenism socio-

evolutionarly

> as the survival of the belief.

>

> Christ would not call me an anti-christ becuase I am not of the

> chains of idiolism to him. God the true god would want nothing

other

> then freedom of all things even of God. The rest is inteliegently

> designed by mind to perserve the collective similarity in

comformity.

>

> What is good is good, judge not and ye shall not be judged correct?

> Or is there numerious stipulations still that perscirbed

> disobiediance to the complexities?

>

> God is of mind, we all have one.

>

> I think it's rude, and madness to call people anti-christ for not

> thinking as they do. It's intolerance and just divides unless one

is

> of it.

>

> Everyone else goes to hell, but that is the brainwashing I know

that

> for sure.

>

> There are better ways..Much better..I am no anti-christ and anyone

> that believes that is not only of delusion but delusional schezo.

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:14:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> > nathaninfortuna@ writes:

> >

> > A televangelist said in an outspoken higher tone seemingly

> determined but

> > mad tone of voice that anti-god was anti-Christ.

> >

> >

> >

> > What is wrong with this statement?

> >

> > If one does not believe in God one cannot believe in Christ. If

> one actively

> > opposes God, or is anti-God, then one is also anti-Christ. This

> does not

> > mean that one is the figurative Anti-Christ of Revelations and

the

> end times.

> > Its very logical to me.

> >

> > Anti-God would be anti-belief. Not believing in God is not

> believing in God

> > so therefore is anti-belief in God.

> >

> > If Christian doctrine causes imbalance in a person, it is because

> they don't

> > understand it or are using it as a mask for their own bad

behavior.

> How it

> > can cause delusions I don't know. As for " Makes a subconscious

hate

> and or

> > societal separation from others, self and group alienation " have

> you ever

> > witnesses what sports affiliations do to people?

> >

> > I don't understand how on the one hand you can say Christian

> beliefs are

> > delusional and irrational on the one hand, but on the other you

say

> you admire

> > them. That is what is illogical and irrational.

> >

> > Religion isn't about the warm fuzzies or making everyone friends.

> Religion

> > is about the word of God and how we are expected to live our

lives.

> > Christianity does not preach tolerance of everything. If it did

> there would be no reason

> > for it to exist. Rather it has rules and limits which believers

> are expected

> > to abide by which will naturally set them apart from non-

> believers. From

> > what I have seen, the people demanding tolerance are those who's

> lifestyles

> > would be the most offensive to Christians. The more logical

> approach would be for

> > those people to be as tolerant of Christians as they demand

> Christians be

> > tolerant of them. However, the tolerance demanded by them is a

one

> way street.

> >

> > Certain Baptist preachers are energetic. They are commonly called

> the

> > Charismatics. I don't place much stock in them. Other Baptist

> preachers are very

> > sober in their sermons, which is how I think church meetings

should

> be.

> >

> >

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I thought idols were things we kind of worship - like some would make

an idol out of ln Monroe - also possibly an Icon?

Idolism would then mean worship of idols? I suppose a biblical

reference would be the golden calf, a statue that was made and

worshipped - I think that was an idol? and the worshipping of it

idolism?

>

> Idolism, sometimes Word does not underline in red the words to I

assume

> they are correct. Copy and paste between screens I think the

pattern is

> that when I paste and copy the post to Word it does not do it

> automatically.

>

> There are different ways of perceptually understanding the world,

very

> different ways.I might define in the context intended that the

idiol is

> the sub-councious psychologically compartmentalized archetype of

> christ.

>

> Everyone has a different one though externally it is the same, what

is

> envisioned of it different and so is doctrin and inner-personal

beliefs

> of the group philosophy.

>

> It is sort of amix and the subcouncious is the supernatural. The

idiol

> would then be the christ archetype, but really to even say

something

> like that to some makes one evil or something.

>

>

>

>

> > What does " idolism " mean? It looks as if it would sound like

> > " ID-ee-oh-lizz-um " - a word I have never heard. But, whatever it

> > sounds like, I cannot find it in any dictionary.

> >

> >

> > Yours for better letters,

> > Kate Gladstone

> > Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> > handwritingrepair@

> > http://learn.to/handwrite,

> http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> > 325 South Manning Boulevard

> > Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> > telephone 518/482-6763

> > AND REMEMBER ...

> > you can order books through my site!

> > (Amazon.com link -

> > I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" Other cultures had gods that demanded human sacrifices. "

Wait a mo' - the old testament God of Christianity did also require

human sacrifice? All that kind of sacrifice was done away with when

Jesus was crucified - or that is how I understood it anyway?

>

>

> In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:57:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> nathaninfortuna@... writes:

>

> Very closed minded and highly illogical.

>

>

>

> Not so. Christianity is very logical orderly. It is also humble,

though some

> of the preachers are not. Christ admonished his followers to

humility many

> times.

>

> God the true god would want nothing other

> then freedom of all things even of God.

>

> Now this statement doesn't make any sense. What is the freedom of

God? Does

> that mean God is whatever a person believes God to be? If that is

so, then

> such a system believes in no God. God is what God is, not what we

want God to

> be.

>

> Humans have created many gods. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and

other made

> up their own gods. These were very human gods that were far from

perfect or

> even moral. Other cultures had gods that demanded human

sacrifices. Other human

> religions include Nazism and Communism, and we have ample evidence

as to how

> bloody they were.

>

> God is not of the mind but the creator of it. If God is nothing

more than a

> figment of the imagination, then why bother? If God is a of the

mind, then

> praying to God is praying to yourself, making a god of yourself.

>

> What better ways are there? Another world religion, one that also

sets

> itself apart from others and is intolerant to one degree or another?

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Even I have a problem with that.

I am Christian, but am not fond of some Christians using fear tactics

and condeming all to hell - there are nicer approaches.

As for tolerance - I thought Jesus did teach tolerance - to my belief

yes he did get angry with some things - usually how his church was

behaving and believers and yet he was very tolerant of sinners and

other outcasts. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt here on

tolerance and maybe a very applicable one at the moment?

>

> I'm guessing that has no issue with plain belief or a

religion per se, only with fanatical preaching and preachers being

judgemental towards those outside that particular religion?

>

> Inger

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Dear God, Deliver Us from Their

Insanity!

>

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:13:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

nathaninfortuna@... writes:

> I've written like it before, those not of belief that are cogent

seemingly understand me, however those of belief typically do not.

> I don't understand. You say you are not of belief yet object to

being called so? I don't get where you are coming from on this, aside

from having a very negative view of Christians.

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Re:

> Idolism ... idiol

I can't find those in a dictionary, either. And 's descriptions

did not really clarify what he meant here.

Because of similar difficulties with other written communications both

from other Aspies and from NT people, I find myself in great need of a

coping strategy to help me determine the meaning of a previously

unencountered non-dictionary word (e.g., " idiol " or " amix " which both

appear in 's message).

Simply assuming that " idiol " (or whatever) misspells some actually

existing word does not tell me which actual word the other person has

misspelled, and of course developing a habit of assuming this must

leave me still ignorant if I've guessed wrong and the word really does

exist - perhaps in some specialist dictionary that I do not own.

In any case, I've learned the hard way that - very often - people

(especially NT people) take offense when one does not correctly and

immediately deduce the actually intended word from its misspelling,

even a very off-target misspelling. (In ninth grade, I had a teacher

of English who literally misspelled more words than she spelled

correctly - even quite simple words like " typwrittor " (her spelling of

" typewriter " ). In her class, one could not do well on a spelling test

(or even on an essay, since she took points off for spelling) unless

one misspelled in just the same way she did - and this I refused to

persuade myself to do. Her spellings, of course, appeared in no

dictionary (not even the one that she received from the school and

issued to each student) and did not have enough of a pattern to enable

anyone to guess in advance just how she would misspell a particular

word that she would expect you, too, to misspell when it came up.

(Knowing that she spelled " stain " as " stian, " spelled " rain " as

" wraine, " and spelled " train " as " tiran " provided no clue as to how on

Earth she would expect you to spell " pain. " It turned out that she

wanted it " plain " - yes, with an L - and she wanted you to spell the

actual " plain " as " palin. " Oh, yes, she would also mark you wrong if

you *or* your parents asked her to check the dictionary, or mentioned

that the dictionary spelled something differently and in fact had your

*correct* spelling that she had marked wrong and deducted five points

for: " I am the teacher. I *know* proper English. One should not insult

the teacher by making references to the dictionary or otherwise

suggesting that the teacher may be ignorant or mistaken. If I was

mistaken or ignorant, I would not be the teacher. First learn to spell

- THEN you can criticize my spelling. "

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Re:

> Idolism ... idiol

I can't find those in a dictionary, either. And 's descriptions

did not really clarify what he meant here.

Because of similar difficulties with other written communications both

from other Aspies and from NT people, I find myself in great need of a

coping strategy to help me determine the meaning of a previously

unencountered non-dictionary word (e.g., " idiol " or " amix " which both

appear in 's message).

Simply assuming that " idiol " (or whatever) misspells some actually

existing word does not tell me which actual word the other person has

misspelled, and of course developing a habit of assuming this must

leave me still ignorant if I've guessed wrong and the word really does

exist - perhaps in some specialist dictionary that I do not own.

In any case, I've learned the hard way that - very often - people

(especially NT people) take offense when one does not correctly and

immediately deduce the actually intended word from its misspelling,

even a very off-target misspelling. (In ninth grade, I had a teacher

of English who literally misspelled more words than she spelled

correctly - even quite simple words like " typwrittor " (her spelling of

" typewriter " ). In her class, one could not do well on a spelling test

(or even on an essay, since she took points off for spelling) unless

one misspelled in just the same way she did - and this I refused to

persuade myself to do. Her spellings, of course, appeared in no

dictionary (not even the one that she received from the school and

issued to each student) and did not have enough of a pattern to enable

anyone to guess in advance just how she would misspell a particular

word that she would expect you, too, to misspell when it came up.

(Knowing that she spelled " stain " as " stian, " spelled " rain " as

" wraine, " and spelled " train " as " tiran " provided no clue as to how on

Earth she would expect you to spell " pain. " It turned out that she

wanted it " plain " - yes, with an L - and she wanted you to spell the

actual " plain " as " palin. " Oh, yes, she would also mark you wrong if

you *or* your parents asked her to check the dictionary, or mentioned

that the dictionary spelled something differently and in fact had your

*correct* spelling that she had marked wrong and deducted five points

for: " I am the teacher. I *know* proper English. One should not insult

the teacher by making references to the dictionary or otherwise

suggesting that the teacher may be ignorant or mistaken. If I was

mistaken or ignorant, I would not be the teacher. First learn to spell

- THEN you can criticize my spelling. "

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...