Re: Re: For Tom & Inger ( & others) Bringing together the ...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/17/2006 1:33:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

She does not in any way advocate for her child when she publishes stories on her other website that have mentally incapacitated children being inflicted with torture against their will.I will not enter into any alliance where such a hypocrite is advocating for the rights of autistics. Given the duality of her nature, I have no idea where her true beliefs lie. This was why she was banned from this forum.TomAdministrator

I have read some of the stories that Tom refers to and they make me physically sick. I couldn't even finish most of them.

Having someone like that on board could only lead to discredit for all once those stories become more widely known.

Just because they or someone they know may has AS doesn't mean they are people one should associate with. Just as there are dangerous NTs most NTs will avoid, there are certain to be Aspies we should avoid because they are dangerous.

As for the Satanist thing, I have read their "bible" and it is very barbaric and selfish. If everyone followed it, society would be very nasty and brutish, much worse than it is even perceived as being today. That's not to mention that the few of those people I have actually known have also tried to summon demons and so forth (and in one case may have actually succeeded). Those are people we should have no traffic with at all.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/18/2006 1:11:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vze2txm3@... writes:

Then if he simply described his personal beliefs without referencing "Satanism", would you take that differently?Prior to reading the message, I presumed that people who claimed to be Satanists believed in a being called "Satan" and worshipped him. Since Satan is considered an antichrist, that would be a religion based on opposition to Christianity. From what Gareth says, he's treating Satan as a symbol.So as I read it, by coming up with a hedonistic philosophy and identifying it with Satan, he is in essence saying it is in direct opposition to basic beliefs of Christians. So even if some things he says are acceptable, he is starting out by being offensive.Or is this a complete misinterpertation?- s

An interesting post that, the one in the link. This does show Satanism to be a very selfish, humanistic view, very individual as well. All interpretation is geared toward what most benefits the Satanist, that stuff in there about not hurting anyone, that's an amusing aside, but the few I have known never bothered about that. Maybe regarding their friends they did, but only for a while. Anyone else was fair game.

Satan is not an anti-Christ but is the usurper. He questioned the plans of God, mainly by refusing to accept the angels being "demoted" to below Man in terms of God's love and will. This is something of a generalization: basically God made angels first and then Man yet favored Man over the angels. Satan, originally called Lucifer (roughly meaning the bearer of light), was God's second in command. This order caused Satan to turn against God, question his will and even try to usurp his position. His worst offense, however, was to convince a third of all the angels to side with him. As a result, they were all cast out of Heaven.

Satan's original Biblical role was something of a hostile jurist, an accuser of Men and a tempter. For example: it was Satan that brought "charges" against Job and also tormented him. Over time he became seen as the personification of evil. To me this is logical because of his past. Satan went from being the closet thing to God as ever existed to evil. Why? Because he chose to defy God by giving in the jealousy, envy and probably hatred and performed treason, sedition, corrupting angels (also beings close to God) away from God, and leading a revolt against God. So, since Satan committed several of the cardinal sins, probably the first to do so, it is logical that evil began with his actions and therefore that he would be the ultimate personification of them. Likewise, as angels are agents of God that sometimes help Man, it is logical that the fallen angels as agents of Satan, would seek to harm Man, God's favored.

I'm rambling a little since it is late and I was about the go to bed. Satan could be a symbol whether he exists or not. It is perfectly accepted for a existing being to be a symbol. Most of the world considers Hitler to be a symbol of evil (I know he's dead now, but he did exist at one time) while others might consider Mother Theresa as a symbol of charity (yes, I know she is dead too).

Existence aside, is Satan responsible for all the bad and evil in the world. In one sense, yes. Biblically he did tempt Eve into the Original Sin which got Man kicked out of the Garden of Eden and into a harsh world of pain and hardship, likewise if he is the originator or evil itself with his rebellion, then without him evil would never have come to be. On the other hand, maybe not. We don't know the extent of his omnipotence, but it is less than that of God, so perhaps he or his minions are responsible for some things, more by tempting humans to do bad than causing the acts directly (after all, their goal is not to kill humans, but to corrupt them). But, many bad things are probably just a result of the Fall from Grace of Humanity brought about by the Original Sin, disease and death being but two examples. But we will never really know, at least not in this lifetime, if an event was influenced by supernatural forces, though we might strongly suspect it at times.

Bear in mind this. It was often said that the greatest feat Satan could ever accomplish would be to convince Man that he does not exist. If he could do this, then people would begin to question the existence of evil itself. If they no longer believed in evil, or at least in Divine Judgement, then what would restrain them from following their basest instincts and indeed being more drawn to unrighteousness? What better way could he possibly devise to corrupt the souls of Humanity and drawn them away from God and closer to him/

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/18/2006 11:34:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I find this concept of "original sin" to be a rather curious one,really: in reality, Satan was part of the plan of the fall of man intomortality, and a necessary one at that, and the "original sin" (whichhas no logic in cursing offspring in terms of being sinners or beingdamned in the biblical sense) was a transgression, not a sin, becauseGod did not say "Absolutely do not eat of the fruit" but rather "Ifyou eat, then you will die" while at the same time, before theirinnocence was lost, they were married to each other and commanded tomultiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 15 - 17: The Lord took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

With the full verse we can see that God did say not to eat the fruit by saying "must not" and "will surely die." It is no different from a parent telling a child they "mustn't" drink drain cleaner because "it will kill them." Both cases are a warning not to do something. In the case of Adam and Eve, they fell from grace. In the case of the child, they would suffer a very gruesome death.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/18/2006 11:34:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I find this concept of "original sin" to be a rather curious one,really: in reality, Satan was part of the plan of the fall of man intomortality, and a necessary one at that, and the "original sin" (whichhas no logic in cursing offspring in terms of being sinners or beingdamned in the biblical sense) was a transgression, not a sin, becauseGod did not say "Absolutely do not eat of the fruit" but rather "Ifyou eat, then you will die" while at the same time, before theirinnocence was lost, they were married to each other and commanded tomultiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 15 - 17: The Lord took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

With the full verse we can see that God did say not to eat the fruit by saying "must not" and "will surely die." It is no different from a parent telling a child they "mustn't" drink drain cleaner because "it will kill them." Both cases are a warning not to do something. In the case of Adam and Eve, they fell from grace. In the case of the child, they would suffer a very gruesome death.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/18/2006 11:34:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I find this concept of "original sin" to be a rather curious one,really: in reality, Satan was part of the plan of the fall of man intomortality, and a necessary one at that, and the "original sin" (whichhas no logic in cursing offspring in terms of being sinners or beingdamned in the biblical sense) was a transgression, not a sin, becauseGod did not say "Absolutely do not eat of the fruit" but rather "Ifyou eat, then you will die" while at the same time, before theirinnocence was lost, they were married to each other and commanded tomultiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 15 - 17: The Lord took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

With the full verse we can see that God did say not to eat the fruit by saying "must not" and "will surely die." It is no different from a parent telling a child they "mustn't" drink drain cleaner because "it will kill them." Both cases are a warning not to do something. In the case of Adam and Eve, they fell from grace. In the case of the child, they would suffer a very gruesome death.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/18/2006 3:38:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

As much as drinking something too hot isn't a "sin" exactly if you'retold that if you do it, you'll be burned, neither was the partaking ofthat fruit, but it was very much required for them to fulfill thecommandment to go forth and multiply, because they couldn't possiblydo that until they got burned. The fall was a requirement in thegrand scheme of things, and Adam and Eve were very much aware of whatthe plan was, even if they didn't fully understand it in terms ofconsequences with the knowledge they had at the time they were placedin the garden of Eden.

This is just quibbling. The intent was that they were not to eat from the Tree. One would not advise someone against doing something if there wasn't a negative consequence for doing it.

The other problem here is that of free will. Adam and Eve had free will and they could have chosen not to eat the fruit. They probably would not have had Satan not intervened with his temptation of Eve. God may well have known that Man would fall, but Man did not. The fact that they were fated to fall, even though they did not know it, does not absolve them from violating the edict not to eat the fruit.

They did and they were punished for it. I see this very much as the old style of raising children. They would told not to do something that would hurt them, but if they did it anyway and got hurt, then they would learn not to do it again and to take future warnings more seriously. It also taught that actions have consequences and not always pleasant ones.

[Guest guest]

Re:

> until they had the ability to die, they also did not have the ability to

> truly live, where living is defined as having the ability to

> reproduce.

I don't understand this. What tells us that Adam and Eve couldn't

reproduce until they ate the fruit of that tree?

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)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/2006 2:09:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

My assertion was that there was the molestation and rape of mentally incapacitated individuals.

I'm glad it was someone else who mentioned this. I've read those stories, some of them anyway, and they are written by someone the rest of us should want to have no association with. If we do and their stories are discovered by others, which they will be, then all of us will be tainted by association. That's just the way it is. I'd rather take the high ground leave them out. That way when they are exposed, we will be able to say we had nothing to do with them because we found them horrid. That would play much better than having them in this group for however long before they were exposed and then claim ignorance or tolerance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/2006 1:47:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

When Leif firmly says:1) "I support Bonnie's BDSM stories depicting the mistreatment of mentally incpacitated children and adults against their will even as some some of the autistics she claims to support are mentally incapacitated children and adults."And when Leif firmly says:2) "I support an avowed Satanist deadicated to destroy religion even as this Satanist claims to advocate religious autistic people."It will be clear to me that Leif has made his decision and then I will be quiet.

I have been wondering about this and I see two possibilities.

1.) Here is someone more terrified of being called "judgemental" than standing up against things that are clearly wrong.

or

2.) We have a genuine Marxist. That is to say someone consumed by hatred for everything "bourgois" including, and especially ethics and morality. Try reading Marx fully, not just the opening lines, but the whole of the Communist Manifesto and his other works. The whole system of beliefs was about nothing other than destruction and hatred: of society, or standards, of religion, and especially of people.

So, we can embrace this other group, but at the same time we will be embracing moral anarchy, nihilism and a force that wants to tear down all that is good for the sake of their own power and unlimited personal pleasures. If we do, we will be tarred by them and help them spread their message.

A high price to pay for fear of a label.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/2006 3:26:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, leif@... writes:

:> I have been wondering about this and I see two possibilities.>> 1.) Here is someone more terrified of being called "judgemental"> than standing up against things that are clearly wrong.I don't think so. I'm judgemental in some situations, but Irefuse to take sides in all the various autism-groupings. IfI do I'm sure I'll make a big mistake.> or>> 2.) We have a genuine Marxist. That is to say someone consumed> by hatred for everything "bourgois" including, and especially ethics> and morality. Try reading Marx fully, not just the opening lines, but> the whole of the Communist Manifesto and his other works. The> whole system of beliefs was about nothing other than destruction> and hatred: of society, or standards, of religion, and especially ofpeople.I'm not particulary keen on Marxism.

Ok, that is cleared up then. I can see to an extent about not taking sides regarding the different groups. I'm staying out of that too, except as far as that one group is concerned.

I'm glad to hear you aren't keen on Marxism. It has some interesting ideas, but the whole thing is balanced on a very destructive philosophy. How anyone could suport it if they have read the whole of Marx's works is beyond me.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/2006 7:27:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, kajira_2001@... writes:

-Not meaning to barge in,but as a kinky person i think i may be able to judge whether the stories are really "that bad".i do have standards,and while i oppose any kind of censorship of stories,i think it is important to determine if these things could reflect negatively on the Aspie community.May i please have the links and i will post tasteful comments here as soon as possible? Kajira

It will be interesting to see if you think they have any redeeming value. Bear in mind of course that the characters are all either under age and/or mentally handicapped. I don't have the links however, so you might have to look into the older posts for it, unless Tom or someone else reposts them.

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> When Leif firmly says:

>

> 1) " I support Bonnie's BDSM stories depicting the mistreatment of

> mentally incpacitated children and adults against their will even as

> some some of the autistics she claims to support are mentally

> incapacitated children and adults. "

I don't support those stories, and find them quite distasteful.

I do not share the interepretation of mentally incapacitated ==

autistics. I suspect Bonnie might make the connection

incapacitated == NTs instead. That will make a whole

lot more sense to me. Not that I support mistreatment

of NTs either.

> And when Leif firmly says:

>

> 2) " I support an avowed Satanist deadicated to destroy religion even as

> this Satanist claims to advocate religious autistic people. "

I don't support any religous movement, including Christians and

Satanists.

> It will be clear to me that Leif has made his decision and then I will

> be quiet.

I've made a judgement and have joined AP. I also occassionally

visit AFFs site, WrongPlanets site, Wikipedias site and many

more. I'm not commited to any particular autistic aliance. I

think this is what differs between you and me.

:

> I have been wondering about this and I see two possibilities.

>

> 1.) Here is someone more terrified of being called " judgemental "

> than standing up against things that are clearly wrong.

I don't think so. I'm judgemental in some situations, but I

refuse to take sides in all the various autism-groupings. If

I do I'm sure I'll make a big mistake.

> or

>

> 2.) We have a genuine Marxist. That is to say someone consumed

> by hatred for everything " bourgois " including, and especially ethics

> and morality. Try reading Marx fully, not just the opening lines, but

> the whole of the Communist Manifesto and his other works. The

> whole system of beliefs was about nothing other than destruction

> and hatred: of society, or standards, of religion, and especially of

people.

I'm not particulary keen on Marxism.

> So, we can embrace this other group, but at the same time we will

> be embracing moral anarchy, nihilism and a force that wants to tear down

> all that is good for the sake of their own power and unlimited personal

> pleasures.

I don't see it like that. I haven't been mistreated by AFF or Bonnie,

and I haven't seen this going on publicly at AFFs site, so I have no

issues with them. It does bother me that Bonnie has these stories

at her site, and the histories of what goes on behind the scenes of

AFF also does not please me, but I see no reason why I should

despise them because of that. There are always people that cannot

get along, and this might even be more common among autistics

than among NTs.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Re:

> Ah, a case of my memory of the source of something not being exact!

> That is, not that I didn't remember it, but rather I couldn't remember

> the exact book/chapter/verse.

>

> The source for this statement is: http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/5/11

> and be sure to read the surrounding context. Perhaps, though, one

> should read the introductory explanation here:

> http://scriptures.lds.org/pgp/intrdctr

Why should non-Mormons here (including me) regard Mormon scriptures as accurate?

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)

[Guest guest]

I understand (from " Strict " and from other Mormons I know) that

Mormons regard the " Book of Moses " (part of their Book of Mormon) as:

> another translation of Genesis

> from its source)

Among the non-Mormons (scholars and otherwise) who have studied the

Bible and the Book of Mormon, I don't know of any who sees reason to

regard the Book of Moses as " another translation of Genesis from its

source. "

As far as I know, people today do not have (and people in the

nineteenth century also did not have) the actual, original source

manuscripts of the Bible (the first written-down version, with each

book presumably signed/autographed God or Moses or whomever). This

makes it very difficult for me (and other non-Mormons) to regard the

Mormons' " Book of Moses " as a translation from the source.

If I remember correctly what Mormons have told me - " Strict, " please

correct me if I have remembered wrong - ph had the

source-manuscripts revealed to him by an angel. The angel came to

in visions, and told to dig into a certain hill in New

York - found ancient books written on a series of big gold

plates, and showed them to his friends, who all signed statements that

they had seen these gold books and that they had picked them up in

their hands... but nobody else ever saw these books made of gold

plates, because very soon after 's friends signed their

statements, the books disappeared. (I forget if the angel took the

books up to heaven, or if the plates just disappeared one day without

explanation. " Strict, " doubtless you can fill in this gap in my

memory.)

As I understand it, Mormons regard the above events as true and

very important. The non-Mormons I know (myself included) have a very

hard time regarding those events the same way that Mormons do.

I definitely agree with " Strict " that - when we read a translation of

any document - we should read one that uses modern English (or modern

Swedish, or whatever) rather than 16th-century language. (When I quote

Bible verses, I quote the King translation only because most

people have this translation and so they can easily check what I

quote.

So, " Strict " -

/1/ what Bible translation do Mormons use, when they read the Bible -

a translation into modern English, or the King translation into

16th-century English?

/2/ can you please tell me where I can get a Book of Mormon that uses

modern (rather than 16th-century) English? All the Book of Mormon

copies I've ever seen use 16th-century English, so naturally I'd like

to have one in my own language rather than the language of almost half

a millennium ago.

(I don't want to convert to Mormonism, but I do enjoy learning as

much as I can about the various religious scriptures.)

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)

[Guest guest]

Yes, - and I pointed out the same thing a few posts ago.

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)