Re: To Tom, with Love

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/16/2006 5:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

"By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed record of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew."I am a bit confused about the above remark - could you explain further please?

I was too. Seems to me Rainbow is demeaning the very essence of the faith.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/16/2006 7:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-Christian and Jew does not make any difference to things does it?

Many of the Saints were originally rather nasty or base people. It was the change they underwent by accepting Christianity and the people they became that sets them apart from the masses.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/16/2006 7:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-Christian and Jew does not make any difference to things does it?

Many of the Saints were originally rather nasty or base people. It was the change they underwent by accepting Christianity and the people they became that sets them apart from the masses.

[Guest guest]

" By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King

version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed record

of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew. "

I am a bit confused about the above remark - could you explain

further please?

>

> > Tom: " When trolls arrived in later times, discussion dissolved

and

> de-evolved into such things as sex, drugs, and rock and roll "

>

> This was waaaaay before my time.

>

> > Tom: " The few restrictions are these: 1, 2, 3, 4, & I am adding

no

> talk of drug use to that list. "

>

> Such 'talk' has mostly been started by YOU posting spurious 'news'

> articles, to which and I felt an obligation to respond.

>

> I'm assuming 'drug use' would also include alcohol? And tobacco?

> Sugar? Transfats? What else? Why there is a huge 'drug' store next

to

> every market! I've read countless posts regarding 'drugs' on this

> forum by many, many different people that never seemed to be an

issue

> with you.

>

> > Tom: " This is a personal qualm "

>

> Oh, now I see....... I think. Why didn't you say THIS a long time

ago?

>

> > Tom: " You strike me as one of these people (their eyes fog up,

> their mouths curve gradually up into an amused grin) that I cannot

> relate to. "

>

> I don't know how to respond this remark.

>

> > Tom: " .... if you were truly Christian, you would follow he

Bible "

>

> I am a follower of Jesus!

>

> By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King

> version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed record of

a

> formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew.

>

> > Tom: " what you voted for was abortion on demand and the

subsequent

> mass-death of untold millions of babies for the sake of

convenience,

> the legalization of drugs that have caused the crime rate to soar,

> and the proliferation of death and murder among people in the drug

> trade. "

>

> What I have 'voted' for is: liberty and freedom of choice for

women,

> the legalization of marijuana as MEDICINE to relieve suffering,

pain,

> and agony of those near death. I have never supported or been

> involved in the 'drug trade'.

>

> I have more than once agreed to drop this as a topic of discussion.

>

> > Tom: " ..... you have been preaching to us about ....... dodging

> drafts.

>

> NEVER! I resent this remark! I have never spoken a single word on

the

> subject.

>

> > Tom: " ..... a threat to the morality and decency that was lost

> through people like you destroying it with their excessive

demands.... "

>

> Again, I resent this remark!

>

> > Tom: " You do not know Christ "

>

> This is for God to judge, not you.

>

> > Tom: " By your own proclamation you are a Christian and Pagan

> ordained minister, which is blasphemy in the Christian religion "

>

> The history our our world records more than one great spiritual

teacher!

>

> > Tom: " you must break down their altars, smash the sacred

pillars

> they worship, and cut down their carved images. "

>

> How many crucifixes, altars, chalices and cathedrals do Christians

> have? Have you seen how the Pope lives?

>

> > Tom: " Are YOU prepared to meet your God Rainbow? "

>

> Yes!

>

> > Tom: " You are a man who gets high and won't fight for the

country

> which has allowed you to live as you do. "

>

> Actually I did serve my country honorably. What I refused to do

was

> kill human beings in a foreign country.

>

> > Tom: " you'd rather have someone else get maimed and die in your

> stead on the front lines as you piddle around in the background,

or

> as you toke up and grin that amused grin and spout words of wisdom

to

> us all. "

>

> This is all YOUR imagination, Tom.

>

> > Tom: " What sort of life or death is he living as you get high

and

> support the mass slaughter of babies? "

>

> Again, I resent this remark!

>

> > Tom: " Or perhaps its the ranting against fighting for your

country

> that offends you? "

>

> I will rant against fighting with anyone, anytime, anywhere! I

> passionately support my country.

>

> > Tom: " If you had it your way we'd all be a bunch of drug-hazed,

> draft-dodging, selfish, multi-religious law breakers. "

>

> I have never supported drug use by 'all'!

> I have never supported draft-dodging!

> I have never supported being selfish!

> I have never supported law-breaking!

> There has been more than one great spiritual teacher in the

history

> of our world!

>

> Rainbow

>

[Guest guest]

>> Rainbow: "By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King  version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed record of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew."> : "I am a bit confused about the above remark - could you explain further please?I am referring to , who was:   Also Known AsSaul, his JEWISH name, perhaps given in memory of Israel's first king, a member of the tribe of , to which 's family belonged; but following his conversion he was known as .   HomeBorn at Tarsus; brought up in Jerusalem. Later settled in Antioch of Syria, but traveled throughout the Roman Empire, with extended stays in Corinth and Ephesus.   FamilySaul was a Jew but was born a ROMAN citizen, which means his father, who was a Pharisee must have been a Roman citizen before him. Luke mentions that had a sister and a nephew in Acts 23:16.   OccupationTentmaker by trade; trained as a Pharisee under Rabbi Gamaliel, he became the Jewish council's chief agent of ANTI-CHRISTIAN activity before his conversion on the road to Damascus.  became a leader in the church, its most well-known and widely traveled spokesperson, and a major New Testament writer.   Life-Changing ExperienceA vision of Christ on the Damascus road, which led to his conversion and call as an apostle.   Best Known AsThe apostle to the Gentiles.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Sorry for intruding. I thought what you pointed out about the generalization of drugs was kind of a big issue. It's a hot subject. I've talked on this forum about pharmaceutical drugs awhile back and could tell in their writings that it's not something that can be resolved within the confines of this forum. I have since grown up so to speak and have more understanding for those who have to use drugs or feel like they need drugs for any reason whatsoever without showing my opinion in a discordant fashion. It may serve everyone here better if these discussions were gradually turned away from accusations into less severe discussions with less base emotion. "Rainbow ." <rainbow@...> wrote: > Tom: "When trolls

arrived in later times, discussion dissolved and de-evolved into such things as sex, drugs, and rock and roll" This was waaaaay before my time. > Tom: "The few restrictions are these: 1, 2, 3, 4, & I am adding no talk of drug use to that

list." Such 'talk' has mostly been started by YOU posting spurious 'news' articles, to which and I felt an obligation to respond. I'm assuming 'drug use' would also include alcohol? And tobacco? Sugar? Transfats? What else? Why there

is a huge 'drug' store next to every market! I've read countless posts regarding 'drugs' on this forum by many, many different people that never seemed to be an issue with you. > Tom: "This is a personal qualm" Oh, now I see....... I think. Why

didn't you say THIS a long time ago? > Tom: "You strike me as one of these people (their eyes fog up, their mouths curve gradually up into an amused grin) that I cannot relate to." I don't know how to respond this remark. > Tom: ".... if you were truly Christian, you would follow he Bible" I am a follower of Jesus! By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed record of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew. > Tom: "what you voted for was abortion on demand and the subsequent mass-death of untold millions of babies for the sake of convenience, the legalization of drugs that have caused the crime rate to soar, and the proliferation of

death and murder among people in the drug trade." What I have 'voted' for is: liberty and freedom of choice for women, the legalization of marijuana as MEDICINE to relieve suffering, pain, and agony of those near death. I have never supported or been involved in the 'drug trade'. I have more than once agreed to drop this as a topic of discussion. > Tom: "..... you have been preaching to us about ....... dodging drafts. NEVER! I resent this remark! I have never spoken a single

word on the subject. > Tom: "..... a threat to the morality and decency that was lost through people like you destroying it with their excessive demands...." Again, I resent this remark! > Tom: "You do not know Christ" This is for God to judge, not you. > Tom: "By your own proclamation you are a Christian and Pagan ordained minister, which is blasphemy in the Christian religion" The history our our world records more than one great spiritual teacher! > Tom: "you must break down their altars, smash the sacred pillars they worship, and cut down their carved images." How many crucifixes, altars, chalices and cathedrals do Christians have? Have you seen how the Pope lives? > Tom: "Are YOU prepared to meet your God Rainbow?" Yes! > Tom: "You are a man who gets high and won't fight for the country which has allowed you to live as you do." Actually I did serve my country honorably. What I refused to do was kill human beings in a foreign country. > Tom: "you'd rather have someone else get maimed and die in your stead on the front lines as you piddle around in the background, or as you toke up and grin that amused grin and spout words of wisdom to us all." This is all YOUR imagination, Tom. > Tom: "What sort of life or death is he living as you get high and support the mass slaughter of babies?" Again, I resent this remark! > Tom: "Or perhaps its the ranting against fighting for your country that offends you?" I will rant against fighting

with anyone, anytime, anywhere! I passionately support my country. > Tom: "If you had it your way we'd all be a bunch of drug-hazed, draft-dodging, selfish, multi-religious law breakers." I have never supported drug use by

'all'! I have never supported draft-dodging! I have never supported being selfish! I have never supported law-breaking! There has been more than one great spiritual teacher in the history of our world! Rainbow

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-Christian

and Jew does not make any difference to things does it?

>

> >> Rainbow: " By Bible I take it that you are referring to

primarily

> the King version of the New Testament which is mostly the

> reputed record of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew. "

>

> > : " I am a bit confused about the above remark - could you

> explain further please?

>

> I am referring to , who was:

> Also Known As

> Saul, his JEWISH name, perhaps given in memory of Israel's first

> king, a member of the tribe of , to which 's family

> belonged; but following his conversion he was known as .

> Home

> Born at Tarsus; brought up in Jerusalem. Later settled in Antioch

of

> Syria, but traveled throughout the Roman Empire, with extended

stays

> in Corinth and Ephesus.

> Family

> Saul was a Jew but was born a ROMAN citizen, which means his

father,

> who was a Pharisee must have been a Roman citizen before him. Luke

> mentions that had a sister and a nephew in Acts 23:16.

> Occupation

> Tentmaker by trade; trained as a Pharisee under Rabbi Gamaliel, he

> became the Jewish council's chief agent of ANTI-CHRISTIAN activity

> before his conversion on the road to Damascus. became a

leader

> in the church, its most well-known and widely traveled

spokesperson,

> and a major New Testament writer.

> Life-Changing Experience

> A vision of Christ on the Damascus road, which led to his

conversion

> and call as an apostle.

> Best Known As

> The apostle to the Gentiles.

>

> Rainbow

>

[Guest guest]

> : "Seems to me Rainbow is demeaning the very essence of the faith."Only in your imagination!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : "Seems to me Rainbow is demeaning the very essence of the faith."Only in your imagination!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-Christian and Jew does not make any difference to things does it?And he was Roman, the nemesis of the Christians.I don't know what you mean by 'difference', .What I was getting at is this: Saul, or , was NOT Jesus, never knew Him, never saw Him, never talked to Him. As we have seen here recently in this forum, often words/thoughts are misinterpreted/misunderstood just as they perhaps might have been to those long ago speaking a different language, in a far off strange country, in a culture with strange customs, far remote from our own in time and space.Jesus taught us in parables, short tales, with great meaning instantly understood by everyone who heard them. As this variant religion grew so were different thoughts/guides/rules ADDED in order to build a social system that grew into what is commonly referred to as 'Christianity' today. Presently the Roman Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest, in power, money, land, symbols, relics, altars, idols, etc., organizations in the world today. I believe that was NOT the intention of the man behind the philosophy, whom we now call Jesus. I believe that if He were here now He would help the poor, the suffering, and the downtrodden, not take from them. He would preach peace, not nuke the bastards in the name of God. He supported women, He did not try to control them, or their bodies. He lived His live as an EXAMPLE for us to emulate, and would that we could. He lives on in our hearts, not in our churches! No man/woman need stand between us and God! That is His plan.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-Christian and Jew does not make any difference to things does it?And he was Roman, the nemesis of the Christians.I don't know what you mean by 'difference', .What I was getting at is this: Saul, or , was NOT Jesus, never knew Him, never saw Him, never talked to Him. As we have seen here recently in this forum, often words/thoughts are misinterpreted/misunderstood just as they perhaps might have been to those long ago speaking a different language, in a far off strange country, in a culture with strange customs, far remote from our own in time and space.Jesus taught us in parables, short tales, with great meaning instantly understood by everyone who heard them. As this variant religion grew so were different thoughts/guides/rules ADDED in order to build a social system that grew into what is commonly referred to as 'Christianity' today. Presently the Roman Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest, in power, money, land, symbols, relics, altars, idols, etc., organizations in the world today. I believe that was NOT the intention of the man behind the philosophy, whom we now call Jesus. I believe that if He were here now He would help the poor, the suffering, and the downtrodden, not take from them. He would preach peace, not nuke the bastards in the name of God. He supported women, He did not try to control them, or their bodies. He lived His live as an EXAMPLE for us to emulate, and would that we could. He lives on in our hearts, not in our churches! No man/woman need stand between us and God! That is His plan.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

On 16 Apr 2006 Rainbow . wrote:

> By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King

> version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed

> record of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew.

KJV was commissioned in England in the 17th Century (probably by

someone named " King " ).

The Bible, as accepted by most een Christian groups was

compiled between 382 and 404 CE. Several works were left out,

mostly because they were not accepted as truly Christian (or in

the case of the Gospel of , because her decendants were not

Christian). As stated in Romans 1:3, the Jews determine the Old

Testament (at least in thoery). In 382 CE, the bible was fixed

under " Decree of Damasus " , from the Acts of the Roman Synod, 382

CE. In the Decree of Damasus, Pope Damasus (probably a

Christian, at least according to Wikipoedia) listed the

canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments.

Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the Roman Synod listing,

and the Eastern Church accepted it in 419. The Council of Trent

1546-1565 issued a determination regarding the Deuterocanonical

books (probably the same as the Apocrypha).

KJV does eventually go back to the Jews. The JPS version (the

one from 1917, text easily found on the Net) is essentially KJV,

with what appear to be on-the-fly corrections made by the

typesetter. The JPS New Version is difficult to find on the Net,

presumably due to copyright issues, and was a direct translation

subsequent to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran

(south or Jericho and north of Ein Gedi if anyone cares).

So going back to the KJV, the Jews did essentially use that

translation, but those were English speaking and not Roman

Jews. The reason is that Jews studying the bible will read

in the venacular, and study a particular verse from the

Hebrew. Hence the JPS saw no urgent need to render a

new translation in 1917.

It's all in Romans 1:3 (:

- s

[Guest guest]

On 16 Apr 2006 Rainbow . wrote:

> By Bible I take it that you are referring to primarily the King

> version of the New Testament which is mostly the reputed

> record of a formerly anti-Christian Roman Jew.

KJV was commissioned in England in the 17th Century (probably by

someone named " King " ).

The Bible, as accepted by most een Christian groups was

compiled between 382 and 404 CE. Several works were left out,

mostly because they were not accepted as truly Christian (or in

the case of the Gospel of , because her decendants were not

Christian). As stated in Romans 1:3, the Jews determine the Old

Testament (at least in thoery). In 382 CE, the bible was fixed

under " Decree of Damasus " , from the Acts of the Roman Synod, 382

CE. In the Decree of Damasus, Pope Damasus (probably a

Christian, at least according to Wikipoedia) listed the

canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments.

Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the Roman Synod listing,

and the Eastern Church accepted it in 419. The Council of Trent

1546-1565 issued a determination regarding the Deuterocanonical

books (probably the same as the Apocrypha).

KJV does eventually go back to the Jews. The JPS version (the

one from 1917, text easily found on the Net) is essentially KJV,

with what appear to be on-the-fly corrections made by the

typesetter. The JPS New Version is difficult to find on the Net,

presumably due to copyright issues, and was a direct translation

subsequent to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran

(south or Jericho and north of Ein Gedi if anyone cares).

So going back to the KJV, the Jews did essentially use that

translation, but those were English speaking and not Roman

Jews. The reason is that Jews studying the bible will read

in the venacular, and study a particular verse from the

Hebrew. Hence the JPS saw no urgent need to render a

new translation in 1917.

It's all in Romans 1:3 (:

- s

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your further explanation - my wording is not good tonight -

I have had some bad news and as such cognitive abilities are down :-(

>

> > : Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-

> Christian and Jew does not make any difference to things does it?

>

> And he was Roman, the nemesis of the Christians.

>

> I don't know what you mean by 'difference', .

>

> What I was getting at is this: Saul, or , was NOT Jesus, never

> knew Him, never saw Him, never talked to Him.

>

> As we have seen here recently in this forum, often words/thoughts

are

> misinterpreted/misunderstood just as they perhaps might have been

to

> those long ago speaking a different language, in a far off strange

> country, in a culture with strange customs, far remote from our

own

> in time and space.

>

> Jesus taught us in parables, short tales, with great meaning

> instantly understood by everyone who heard them.

>

> As this variant religion grew so were different

thoughts/guides/rules

> ADDED in order to build a social system that grew into what is

> commonly referred to as 'Christianity' today. Presently the Roman

> Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest, in power, money, land,

> symbols, relics, altars, idols, etc., organizations in the world

> today. I believe that was NOT the intention of the man behind the

> philosophy, whom we now call Jesus. I believe that if He were here

> now He would help the poor, the suffering, and the downtrodden,

not

> take from them. He would preach peace, not nuke the bastards in

the

> name of God. He supported women, He did not try to control them,

or

> their bodies. He lived His live as an EXAMPLE for us to emulate,

and

> would that we could. He lives on in our hearts, not in our

churches!

> No man/woman need stand between us and God! That is His plan.

>

> Rainbow

>

[Guest guest]

On 16 Apr 2006 Stan's Computer wrote:

> It's all in Romans 1:3 (:

Correction. Romans 3:1-2 references the Old Testament.

[Guest guest]

Sorry but, if you read paul's writings you'd know Jesus came to him in a vision on the road to damascus. "Rainbow ." <rainbow@...> wrote: > : Okay thanks for the explanation. being formerly anti-Christian and Jew does not make any difference to things does it? And he was Roman, the nemesis of the Christians. I don't know what you mean by 'difference', . What I was getting at is this: Saul, or , was NOT Jesus, never knew Him, never saw Him, never talked to Him. As we have seen here recently in this forum, often words/thoughts are misinterpreted/misunderstood just as they perhaps might have been to those long ago speaking a different language, in a far off strange country, in a culture with strange customs, far remote from our own in time and space. Jesus taught us in parables, short tales, with great meaning instantly understood by everyone who heard them. As this variant religion grew so were different thoughts/guides/rules ADDED in order to build a social system that grew into what is commonly referred to as 'Christianity' today. Presently the Roman Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest, in power, money, land, symbols, relics, altars, idols, etc., organizations in the world today. I believe that was NOT the intention of the man behind the philosophy, whom we now call Jesus. I believe that if He were here now He would help the poor, the suffering, and the downtrodden, not take from them. He would preach peace, not nuke the bastards in the name of God. He supported women, He did not try to control them, or their bodies. He lived His live as an EXAMPLE for us to emulate, and would that we could. He lives on in our hearts, not in our churches! No man/woman need stand between us and God! That

is His plan. Rainbow

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Tom: " This is a personal qualm "

Rainbow: Oh, now I see....... I think. Why didn't you say THIS a

long time ago?

I have said before that I didn't want the topic discussed on the

board but it filters in over and over. Just think, if no one used

the drug, the topic would not filter in.

I'm not going to say anymore about this issue. What I would like is

to have board go back to the days when members didn't have to fall

witness to others bickering all the time.

I intend to see that the board is kept a bit more calm going forward.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>>

> " KJV does eventually go back to the Jews. The JPS version (the

> one from 1917, text easily found on the Net) is essentially KJV,

> with what appear to be on-the-fly corrections made by the

> typesetter. "

I'm not sure what you mean by the KJV going back to the Jews? And

Jews don't accept the New Testament, anyway, unless they are Jews for

Jesus or a group that accepts Jesus. Do you mean it has a connection

somewhere because of the manuscripts it is translated from?

The King is just a translation, there is nothing special about

it particularly. It is also an old form of English, which makes it

difficult to understand, and some words have changed meaning since

then. The 'thee' and 'thou' way of speaking/writing may be poetic to

some but clarity is what is important, and the Hebrew and Greek

languages are what the bible was written in originally, not English.

Also, the bible is available world-wide and is continually being

translated into other languages and dialects so that it can be

available to anyone, in their own, native language.

>

> " It's all in Romans 1:3 "

>

>How does Romans 3:1,2 apply here? was building an argument here

and trying to build a bridge between the old Jewish way and the new

Christian way. He didn't want to insult Jews, but try to respectfully

bring them to Christianity. The purpose of the Mosaic Law was to

bring God's people, the Jews, to the Messiah, and the Law ended with

the Messiah and was replaced by Christianity. He's also trying to

convince them that circumcision is no longer necessary, because the

newly converted Christians were holding onto circumcision as

necessary. Finally, at the end of Romans 3 he states that Jews and

people of the nations are all God's people now and that faith

replaces circumcision (no longer a 'Jew' on the outside, but one on

the inside, i.e., a spiritual Jew.) Many people misquote or take

a statement of his out of context because he builds his arguments

from a common ground, and a positive base so as to show respect and

get the attention of his listeners and lead them to the understanding

he is trying to impart.

[Guest guest]

>

> " And he was Roman, the nemesis of the Christians. "

had a zeal for God as a natural and religious Jew (he was a

Roman citizen)and thought he was doing the right thing when he

persecuted Christians.

>

" What I was getting at is this: Saul, or , was NOT Jesus, never

> knew Him, never saw Him, never talked to Him. "

Jesus had died as a human by this time, but Jesus (already

resurrected) appeared to and told him to stop persecuting

Christians and become a Christian: Acts 9. became an apostle and

had an instrumental part to play in early Christianity. He also

himself foretold the apostasy that would come after the death of the

apostles, where true Christianity would be tainted with wrong

teachings--2 Th 2:3.

Also, no Christians since then have seen Jesus, yet Jesus intended

that Christianity flourish with him as leader. If a group of people

call themeselves Christian, that does not mean it is so, anyone can

call themselves anything. If he is in heaven overseeing true

Christianity, he will see to it that it is done right, according to

his wishes, as when he walked on earth.

[Guest guest]

> Tom: "I'm not going to say anymore about this issue. What I would like is to have board go back to the days when members didn't have to fall witness to others bickering all the time."I as well.   Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> Tom: " I'm not going to say anymore about this issue. What I would

like is to have board go back to the days when members didn't have

to fall witness to others bickering all the time. "

Rainbow: " I as well. "

Good.

Perhaps you feel that I am coming down on people too hard lately. I

will share with you a story that explains a few things. (This one is

not for sensitive ears, so if anyone has them, they might want to

skip the rest of this post.)

When I was young (this would be about the time I was in

kindergarten) we used to have these neighbords that lived next door.

Their names were Gemma and Jerry. They looked like Sonny and Cher,

except Gemma had red hair, and Jerry was taller than Gemma.

Sometimes, as a joke, they would sing " I got you Babe, " when people

pointed out that they looked like Sonny and Cher.

Our yard was surrounded by rose bushes, but all the yards to the

right as you faced the back were open. There was so much room back

there that you could play frisbee, or catch, or baseball, provided

you used a plastic bat and ball.

Gemma and Jerry weren't married, but they lived together. They used

to throw wild parties with lots of loud music and people running

around. They grew pot in their garden, and when they asked us to

take in the mail and water the garden when they went on vacation, my

mom would water everything but the pot.

Sometimes when I played out in the yard, Gemma would say hello from

the other side of the rose bushes where she was sunbathing, and I

would ask if I could go over and visit her. She'd say yes, so I

would crawl through the bushes and there she would be, lying there

in a reclining lawn chair wearing sunglasses...and nothing else.

I had no sexual feelings at that age. Merely curiosity and general

interest.

Obviously, I noticed anatomical differences and I inquired about

them.

She was very matter of fact about it and explained that men and

woman and boys and girls are built differently, and explained that

breasts were for giving milk but could also receive pleasure.

I also noticed something missing between her legs, and so she spread

them and pointed out the differences.

I thought this was interesting and asked to touch, and she said no,

people's bodies were to remain private, even if they were open to

view, even though she had spread herself and pointed everything out

with her fingers.

I think one of the neighbors must have told my mother because my

mother told me not to go over there anymore without asking her

first.

But sometimes I would go over there anyway.

Sitting and talking with Gemma those times as she got her all over

tan was interesting.

She was never critical of my mother, but did tell me I wasn't

supposed to be over there, though she never kicked me over to the

other side of the rose bushes either.

My mom had told me only that Gemma wasn't Christian and that some of

the things she did weren't Christian, and when I asked Gemma about

this, she explained that she believed in God, but that her God

wanted everyone to be happy.

Gemma said she wasn't going to grow up to be like other old people

and wear frowns on her face all the time.

Gemma believed that God is Love, and because of it, people should

share their love with one another freely.

I also told her that my mom wouldn't water some of her plants, and

what did Gemma think about that? Gemma said it didn't matter. Those

plants didn't need much water.

I asked why mom didn't want to water them, and she said that some

plants make you feel really good, but that you have to be careful

with them. They are not for all people. Just some. And that mom

didn't think those plants were good for ANY people.

Gemma said that plants were just plants and pills were just pills

and there was nothing wrong with using plants, or pills, or powders

to make yourself feel better but that you should ask your mother

before you use any of them.

Sometimes, as I said before, there were parties going on over there

and people (both men and women) would come out of the house naked,

and sometimes Gemma would come out naked with other men, Jerry with

other women, and sometimes I would see Gemma kissing other women.

Kids would be running around naked too sometimes, although they were

almost always clothed.

I asked Gemma about this, and she told me to remember about her

telling me that God was love and that there are different ways of

sharing love. One is sharing bodies with other people. But that

wasn't always what was best for people either. Sometimes bodies

should remain private.

One day Gemma told my mom she was pregnant. I asked Gemma if she and

Jerry were going to have a baby. She said no. The baby was going to

go to heaven.

I asked why, and she said because she didn't know who the father was

and all babies should have a mother and a father.

I asked her if it was fair to the baby, and she said that since God

is Love, He would take care of the baby.

I asked where the baby was, and she pointed to her bare stomach, and

I asked who was going to take the baby out and who was going to send

it to heaven. She explained that a doctor would take it out and she

was the one who would send it to heaven.

I never had an opinion about any of this one way or another, except

I thought that my mother was overworking herself about these things.

Gemma seemed nice and was always nice to me, and her explanations

for everything were always very simple and easy to understand.

Anyway, they moved.

They sent a postcard later on saying they got married though, and

that they moved down the street from our church.

My mom raged against this wondering aloud how the two of them could

move down the street from our church and still lead that lifestyle.

Years later, (when I was in my twenties) I attended the early

service at church (something my mom rarely ever does since she is

usually hung over on Sunday mornings) and I saw Gemma there.

I was amazed to see her.

Our church is very strict and preaches against her entire lifestyle.

Yet here she was taking communion and praying and singing.

I looked at her a few times and as the congregation left after the

service, I debated whether or not I should approach her and say hi.

I had mixed feelings. I found myself being angry at her for

attending our church considering the lifestyle she was presumably

still leading.

What right did she have to be a churchgoer and a supposedly devout

Christian on Sunday and a sinner the rest of the time?

But she saw me looking at her and I said " Gemma? "

She looked at me and said " Yes? "

I said, " It's Tom _____ your old next door neighbor? "

She smiled and approached me, offering me her hand.

This surprised me also, and I shook it.

She spoke freely and without reserve from this point onward.

I asked her how Jerry was doing.

She said she divorced him. She and her kids were still living down

the street.

I asked her why they had gotten divorced (Aspie lack of decorum).

She first asked me if I remembered anything about her past

lifestyle, or if my mother had told me anything about it. I nodded

but did not say anything.

And she told me outright that there had always been a hollowness in

her life that Jerry and her previous lifestyle had been unable to

fill and the big hole grew worse the more she tried to fill it with

drugs and sex (keep in mind there are people filing past us to shake

hands with the pastors at this point, yet she was speaking openly

and freely.)

She said she'd realized that what had been missing was God.

So she renounced all things past and began anew, this time with God

at her side instead of her husband.

She then apologized to me for the ways in which she might have

distorted my thinking when I was younger.

I told her not to worry about it at all, and that I was happy that

she had come to God.

There was nothing left to say, and we parted company.

But being an adult caused me to reflect that I too, have from time

to time felt that hollowness that she once felt.

Not only have I seen others experiencing what she experienced, I

have been drunk on a few occassions, and I have had four sexual

partners (one being a fiance and another my ex-wife) yet even so,

sex for sex's sake is lust, not love.

What I want is for everyone who uses the forums to leave any hollow

feeling that comes from their REAL lives behind.

Rainbow, sometimes I think you bring the hollow feelings to the

forum.

This is why I made the assertion that I think my God is different

than your God.

And this is why I talk about God freely when it seems to be

appropriate.

Sometimes people think that all I am doing with the forums is just

foisting my own point of view on all of them and making the forums

an unfriendly place.

Thing is, these people do not know what a friend actually is. A

friend is someone who tries to take away that hollow feeling and

fill it up with true love. The fact that the love I have to give

comes from God's influence on my life is just a fact.

I am not trying to impose anything on anyone, except perhaps

goodness.

So people, let's cut the bickering and lets please not talk about

drugs, or sex, or lustful things, but try to talk to one another in

terms of friendship and fellowship.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> Thing is, these people do not know what a friend actually is. A

> friend is someone who tries to take away that hollow feeling and

> fill it up with true love. The fact that the love I have to give

> comes from God's influence on my life is just a fact.

Amen, what nice words. :-)

Kate2

[Guest guest]

Some of this post may be for sensitive ears, but what you said about

friendship,

" Thing is, these people do not know what a friend actually

is. A friend is someone who tries to take away that hollow feeling

and fill it up with true love. The fact that the love I have to give

comes from God's influence on my life is just a fact. "

is truly beautiful.

>

> > Tom: " I'm not going to say anymore about this issue. What I would

> like is to have board go back to the days when members didn't have

> to fall witness to others bickering all the time. "

>

> Rainbow: " I as well. "

>

> Good.

>

> Perhaps you feel that I am coming down on people too hard lately. I

> will share with you a story that explains a few things. (This one

is

> not for sensitive ears, so if anyone has them, they might want to

> skip the rest of this post.)

>

> When I was young (this would be about the time I was in

> kindergarten) we used to have these neighbords that lived next

door.

> Their names were Gemma and Jerry. They looked like Sonny and Cher,

> except Gemma had red hair, and Jerry was taller than Gemma.

> Sometimes, as a joke, they would sing " I got you Babe, " when people

> pointed out that they looked like Sonny and Cher.

>

> Our yard was surrounded by rose bushes, but all the yards to the

> right as you faced the back were open. There was so much room back

> there that you could play frisbee, or catch, or baseball, provided

> you used a plastic bat and ball.

>

> Gemma and Jerry weren't married, but they lived together. They used

> to throw wild parties with lots of loud music and people running

> around. They grew pot in their garden, and when they asked us to

> take in the mail and water the garden when they went on vacation,

my

> mom would water everything but the pot.

>

> Sometimes when I played out in the yard, Gemma would say hello from

> the other side of the rose bushes where she was sunbathing, and I

> would ask if I could go over and visit her. She'd say yes, so I

> would crawl through the bushes and there she would be, lying there

> in a reclining lawn chair wearing sunglasses...and nothing else.

>

> I had no sexual feelings at that age. Merely curiosity and general

> interest.

>

> Obviously, I noticed anatomical differences and I inquired about

> them.

>

> She was very matter of fact about it and explained that men and

> woman and boys and girls are built differently, and explained that

> breasts were for giving milk but could also receive pleasure.

>

> I also noticed something missing between her legs, and so she

spread

> them and pointed out the differences.

>

> I thought this was interesting and asked to touch, and she said no,

> people's bodies were to remain private, even if they were open to

> view, even though she had spread herself and pointed everything out

> with her fingers.

>

> I think one of the neighbors must have told my mother because my

> mother told me not to go over there anymore without asking her

> first.

>

> But sometimes I would go over there anyway.

>

> Sitting and talking with Gemma those times as she got her all over

> tan was interesting.

>

> She was never critical of my mother, but did tell me I wasn't

> supposed to be over there, though she never kicked me over to the

> other side of the rose bushes either.

>

> My mom had told me only that Gemma wasn't Christian and that some

of

> the things she did weren't Christian, and when I asked Gemma about

> this, she explained that she believed in God, but that her God

> wanted everyone to be happy.

>

> Gemma said she wasn't going to grow up to be like other old people

> and wear frowns on her face all the time.

>

> Gemma believed that God is Love, and because of it, people should

> share their love with one another freely.

>

> I also told her that my mom wouldn't water some of her plants, and

> what did Gemma think about that? Gemma said it didn't matter. Those

> plants didn't need much water.

>

> I asked why mom didn't want to water them, and she said that some

> plants make you feel really good, but that you have to be careful

> with them. They are not for all people. Just some. And that mom

> didn't think those plants were good for ANY people.

>

> Gemma said that plants were just plants and pills were just pills

> and there was nothing wrong with using plants, or pills, or powders

> to make yourself feel better but that you should ask your mother

> before you use any of them.

>

> Sometimes, as I said before, there were parties going on over there

> and people (both men and women) would come out of the house naked,

> and sometimes Gemma would come out naked with other men, Jerry with

> other women, and sometimes I would see Gemma kissing other women.

>

> Kids would be running around naked too sometimes, although they

were

> almost always clothed.

>

> I asked Gemma about this, and she told me to remember about her

> telling me that God was love and that there are different ways of

> sharing love. One is sharing bodies with other people. But that

> wasn't always what was best for people either. Sometimes bodies

> should remain private.

>

> One day Gemma told my mom she was pregnant. I asked Gemma if she

and

> Jerry were going to have a baby. She said no. The baby was going to

> go to heaven.

>

> I asked why, and she said because she didn't know who the father

was

> and all babies should have a mother and a father.

>

> I asked her if it was fair to the baby, and she said that since God

> is Love, He would take care of the baby.

>

> I asked where the baby was, and she pointed to her bare stomach,

and

> I asked who was going to take the baby out and who was going to

send

> it to heaven. She explained that a doctor would take it out and she

> was the one who would send it to heaven.

>

> I never had an opinion about any of this one way or another, except

> I thought that my mother was overworking herself about these

things.

> Gemma seemed nice and was always nice to me, and her explanations

> for everything were always very simple and easy to understand.

>

> Anyway, they moved.

>

> They sent a postcard later on saying they got married though, and

> that they moved down the street from our church.

>

> My mom raged against this wondering aloud how the two of them could

> move down the street from our church and still lead that lifestyle.

>

> Years later, (when I was in my twenties) I attended the early

> service at church (something my mom rarely ever does since she is

> usually hung over on Sunday mornings) and I saw Gemma there.

>

> I was amazed to see her.

>

> Our church is very strict and preaches against her entire

lifestyle.

> Yet here she was taking communion and praying and singing.

>

> I looked at her a few times and as the congregation left after the

> service, I debated whether or not I should approach her and say hi.

>

> I had mixed feelings. I found myself being angry at her for

> attending our church considering the lifestyle she was presumably

> still leading.

>

> What right did she have to be a churchgoer and a supposedly devout

> Christian on Sunday and a sinner the rest of the time?

>

> But she saw me looking at her and I said " Gemma? "

>

> She looked at me and said " Yes? "

>

> I said, " It's Tom _____ your old next door neighbor? "

>

> She smiled and approached me, offering me her hand.

>

> This surprised me also, and I shook it.

>

> She spoke freely and without reserve from this point onward.

>

> I asked her how Jerry was doing.

>

> She said she divorced him. She and her kids were still living down

> the street.

>

> I asked her why they had gotten divorced (Aspie lack of decorum).

> She first asked me if I remembered anything about her past

> lifestyle, or if my mother had told me anything about it. I nodded

> but did not say anything.

>

> And she told me outright that there had always been a hollowness in

> her life that Jerry and her previous lifestyle had been unable to

> fill and the big hole grew worse the more she tried to fill it with

> drugs and sex (keep in mind there are people filing past us to

shake

> hands with the pastors at this point, yet she was speaking openly

> and freely.)

>

> She said she'd realized that what had been missing was God.

>

> So she renounced all things past and began anew, this time with God

> at her side instead of her husband.

>

> She then apologized to me for the ways in which she might have

> distorted my thinking when I was younger.

>

> I told her not to worry about it at all, and that I was happy that

> she had come to God.

>

> There was nothing left to say, and we parted company.

>

> But being an adult caused me to reflect that I too, have from time

> to time felt that hollowness that she once felt.

>

> Not only have I seen others experiencing what she experienced, I

> have been drunk on a few occassions, and I have had four sexual

> partners (one being a fiance and another my ex-wife) yet even so,

> sex for sex's sake is lust, not love.

>

> What I want is for everyone who uses the forums to leave any hollow

> feeling that comes from their REAL lives behind.

>

> Rainbow, sometimes I think you bring the hollow feelings to the

> forum.

>

> This is why I made the assertion that I think my God is different

> than your God.

>

> And this is why I talk about God freely when it seems to be

> appropriate.

>

> Sometimes people think that all I am doing with the forums is just

> foisting my own point of view on all of them and making the forums

> an unfriendly place.

>

> Thing is, these people do not know what a friend actually is. A

> friend is someone who tries to take away that hollow feeling and

> fill it up with true love. The fact that the love I have to give

> comes from God's influence on my life is just a fact.

>

> I am not trying to impose anything on anyone, except perhaps

> goodness.

>

> So people, let's cut the bickering and lets please not talk about

> drugs, or sex, or lustful things, but try to talk to one another in

> terms of friendship and fellowship.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

> Tom: "Rainbow, sometimes I think you bring the hollow feelings to the forum."This has never been my wish/will/desire in any form whatsoever!> Tom: "When I was young..........."I'm so sorry! I had the most incredibly 'normal' upbringing. All those things you mention were never a part of my childhood, nor where they ever even spoken of.> Tom: "I am not trying to impose anything on anyone, except perhaps goodness."That makes two of us!> Tom: "..... try to talk to one another in terms of friendship....I'm with you!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

I see this debate has continued without Beth putting Tom & Rainbow on

moderation. I hope that means I can add a few comments too. ;-)

Tom, I'm glad you explained where you're coming from on this issue. Whenever

someone is strongly for or against something it is usually due to PERSONAL

experiences.

My own reality is clearly different from yours. Although I don't use

anything at all myself, I've known a lot of people who took all sorts of

drugs; for recreation or as self-medication; in balanced moderation or in

addicted excess. For some it was what kept them sane and functioning; for

others it was what pushed their already unstable personalities over the

edge.

With my budding clairsentient ability, combined with some limited personal

experience when I tried some drugs in my early 20's, I'd like to reiterate

my personal perception of various types of drugs (and this will be the very

last post I ever make here on this topic):

* The opiate group (opium, morphine, heroin) usually lowers one's

vibrations, or attract those who are already on a lower vibe. Extremely

physically addictive. I've only tried opium once and it made me feel like a

living dead, just like valium did. (That may have been an atypical reaction,

though; I'm sure others get more out of it?) Those who use it regularly get

an extremely unpleasant vibe IMO, and I can't even listen to most music made

by heroin addicts. This is by far the most dangerous group and I don't

understand why hardly no one has ranted about it since Steppenwolf's " The

Pusher " 1969. http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/easyrider/steppenwolf.htm

* The stimulant group (cocaine, methamphetamine, nicotine, caffeine, sugar

etc.) is stimulating to normal people, can be overstimulating to sensitive

people like me, but calming to those who are already physically or mentally

hyperactive due to it's concentrating effect (sort of like chemically

induced hyperfocus). Very addictive as well.

* Solvents (alcohol, thinner etc.) have the opposite effect. They inhibit

higher brain functions so that the reptile brain can take over, as well as

numb physical and emotional pain temporarily. For overly self-controlled and

inhibited individuals alcohol can be liberating and useful in moderate

amounts, but regularly and in excess everyone knows what damage that can do.

* The hallucinogenic group (which includes cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms,

peyote etc.) tends to open one up spiritually and raise one's vibrations -

or attract those whose vibrations are already naturally high - and are

usually not physically addictive. May induce psychosis in those who are not

ready for it, or if they have a body type/personality type that is not in

harmony with it, or if sprayed with harmful pesticides. But I've found that

spiritually enlightened people can take moderate amounts of hallucinogenic

drugs without it having any negative effect on them whatsoever; rather the

other way around. Those I've known who use moderate amounts of MJ and no

other drugs have been exceptionally bright, lovely and loving people that I

find a joy to be around.

Enough about drugs. Now about Rainbow:

Until Rainbow was pushed over his limit of endurance by being called dazed &

confused among other disparaging things and blew his top, I've rarely seen

him bring anything but love, light, joy and compassion to this forum. I'm

very glad he elected to stay since it - IMO - would not be the same without

Rainbow.

And to choose to serve one's country by OTHER means than carrying a rifle I

find VERY honorable. If ALL men did the same, there would be no more war! (I

still respect those who believe in war but I think that we who do not

believe in killing other people deserve the same respect back.)

Finally, I do wish someone had bothered to read that Spiral Dynamics link I

posted a while ago. Then it would have been obvious that we are ALL needed.

The Blue-Orange conservative types are needed keep the economy going and

ophold the Law so that the Red anarchistic elements are kept from causing

havoc by taking personal freedom & indulgence too far.

But we Green types are also needed to keep ideals and playfulness alive, to

push overly restrictive limits and keep the Blues from becoming so rigid

that they strangle the life & fun out of both themselves and everyone else

with their zeal.

So, why not live and let live, folks? Accept who you are and accept others

as THEY are. (No amount of arguing is ever going to change another person,

anyway.)

Inger