-
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The TMF is sponsored by:
Medjugorje
- Thread starter ReturntoGod
- Start date
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,820
- Points
- 0
MK, good post as usual. But you could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had just referred your readers to the Straczynski quote you use for a signature. That pretty much says it all.
Strelnikov
Strelnikov
ReturntoGod
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2001
- Messages
- 43
- Points
- 0
RE: Malkalnod
Okay, I really didn't intend to post any further comments to this thread, but much of Malkalnod's reply is seriously errant. I mean no offense by that, but I feel I must reply as you are either misled or incomprehensive on several points. Though I hate to use the "quote from the previous post" and then reply in paragraph form such as Pamsfeet used to do on AMT (for those who remember), it is the only way that I can rebut concisely. So here goes:
"I've been to the www.medjugorjeusa.org site that Scott posted when he left, and the www.medjugorje.org that he mentions now, and as a person who reads voraciously about genuine investigations of paranormal activity, I can say with confidence that the place is a hoax"
First off, reading two websites about an encounter that has been happening since 1981 and to the present day, about which hundreds of books have been written and documentaries made -> that is hardly reading voraciously about the subject at hand. You have not even scratched the surface. Even if they do sell religious memorabilia, how does this make them charlatans? Have you seen the basket being passed around in Church? Everyone running an enterprise, noble or evil, needs some sort of fund to keep it in operation. I applaud them. Would you say that because donations are being taken for the tragedy in New York that they are ripping off the American public? I dare not think so. In order to maintain something, anything, that enterprise needs funds.
"They've discovered that thousands of people are willing to spend American dollars for the privilege of being told what they want to hear."
Again this is evident of your lack of serious investigation of the "phenomenon". People are not going there to hear what they want to hear. Communist atheists have gone there and been converted. Protestants (who do not believe in praying to Mary) have been converted. Priests who have come back from Medjugorje with a renewed vigor have converted many. The numbers are in the thousands. These, in and of themselves, are miracles. Please do not make blanket statements until you have assured yourself that what you are stating is fact and not stained with personal opinion.
"As for Scott's supposed miracles, I see little actual divine influence in them. The "Miracle of the Sun" can easily repeated by staring at any exposed light bulb. The glowing disc with a shining halo he describes is simply what happens when the rod and cone cells on your retina get overstimulated by staring at the light source. The pulsing and dancing effect arises when natural, otherwise imperceptible motions of the eye shift new rods and sones into the area of effect, and they become over-stimulated as well"
Either my explanation of this occurrence was lacking in description or you are mistaking me for an idiot that does not realize something far out of the ordinary when he sees it. This was not a light bulb. I have glanced at the sun many, many times. It has been in the sky since I was born
I have never, ever, seen the sun do what it did that day. This was not a wishful desire of the mind that willed something extraordinary from something very ordinary. I cannot be descriptive or convincing enough to describe it to you simply because it was beyond description. My written paraphrase of the encounter was far inadequate. Let me try again: I first saw people below me kneeling, crying and looking up at the sun. I turned and looked. I looked at it clearly. There was no squinting, no raised hands to block it's intensity. I looked at it as casually as if I were perusing a magazine rack. That was but the beginning. Within the sphere of the sun was a white host or circle that was purer than snow. It was encompassed by a golden globe. All around this was a hazy pink aura. The white circle was pulsating, like a heartbeat, within the golden globe. The globe itself was jumping around the sky sporadically. However much you wish to normalize the occurrence, it was anything but normal.
"I must question the truth of Scott's accounts of the Rosary transmuting from silver to gold, and the light show on the Crucifix, but that is more due to Scott's actions. We have only his testimony to go on, and assertations on an internet discussion board aren't the sort of thing that holds up under close scrutiny. I can tell you all that I'm actually an astronaut or that I've had lengthy personal conversations with the Dali Lama, but that doesn't make it true, does it? I could even say that I'm not really a human being, but rather a highly evolved form of bicycle, couldn't I?"
Yes, you could say you were an astronaut or that you have had conversations with the Dali Lama....and that would accomplish what???
I have no reason to create prevarications. What possible benefit could I have for making bold-faced lies? I'm not being paid for this, I'm not seeking to win anyone over to an extremist religious faction I'm organizing. I'm not waging a war. Tell me, what possible reason do I have to lie about this? The very insinuation is ludicrous and evidentiary of a fear on your part that such a phenomenon had occurred and is currently occurring.
"Scott has a history of deception and duplicity on this forum, like: Posting religious harangues under the thread title "New Pics," coming back with a new screen name and pretending to be someone else for every post, etc. Not the actions of a forthright and truthful man, are they?"
I have a history of deception and duplicity on this forum? Not sure how long you've been around, but.....I created this forum. If I wanted someplace to create deceptions I would not have built a board centered on tickling. As for coming back with different screenames: The simple reason for that is I have always gone by "psycho4048" and used the password that went with it. I don't have the best memory for names and the accompanying passwords. In addition when I post these topics I usually don't intend to come back and make rebuttals to them. But when I feel impelled to I have to come up with a new screename and password because I have no idea as to the name or password I created before. This is me, and this is as truthful and open hearted as it gets. I am well aware that I'm opening myself to ridicule and slander. That comes with anyone speaking in adversity. It doesn't bother me. But personal attacks do not lend credence to your argument, but rather weaken it and reveal a fear of dealing with the actual topic at hand.
"Another area which calls the validity of this operation into question is the fact that the originators of the sightings were children. The testimony of children is notoriously suspect, since, seeking approval, they have a tendency to say whatever they think the questioner wants to hear."
Again, you have not done your research. Let me give you some examples:
"A number of doctors came independently to Medugorje from 1982 on, and studied the children carefully during the moment of ecstasy and in their normal life. Before this Fr Slavko Barberic OFM, who was later to become well-known as the visionaries spiritual guide, had examined them in the light of his specialized studies in social psychology - he has a doctorate in this field. He has concluded that the children behaved independently of one another and that there was no sign of hallucination. A Yugoslav doctor, Stopar, a specialist in psychiatry, hypnotherapy and parapsychology found the children 'to be absolutely normal'
Dr Maria Frederica Magatti studied the reaction to the stimuli in the moment of ecstasy was genuine and the neurological condition of the children was one of absolute normality. The same doctor noted three synchronous movements of the children at the time of the ecstasy: they fall to their knees at the same moment and then though their lips move they are not heard speaking; the sound of the voices return simultaneously to take up the Our Father at the third word, the first two having been intoned for them; their heads are raised and their eyes turned upwards at the end of the apparition all at the same time. She concludes: 'The first synchronous movement could be (I say 'could be', not 'is') explained by natural causes; the second and third, especially the second, are not naturally explainable and imply causes perceptible only to the visionaries and not to those observing them.'
In March 1984 Dr Mario Botta, a cardiac surgeon, took a cardiograph of one of the seers, Ivan, at the time of the ecstasy. He concluded that the ecstasy does not alter normal physiology, but transcends it, lifting the visionary on to a higher plane, which renders it impossible to apply the ordinary techniques of medical diagnosis. The conclusion: the phenomenon calls for openness of faith directly related to the Blessed Virgin, whom the visionaries see.
In general, the psychiatrist found no sign of hallucination, epileptic syndrome or any disorder which could change consciousness. The visionaries differ from those subjected to hypnosis by the fact that they remember exactly what takes place during the ecstasy, whereas people who are hypnotized forget what happened during their trance. They are not like spiritualistic mediums, who feel that they are taken over by another personality; on the contrary they retain their identity and manifest it in what they say." (Medjugorje - Facts, Documents, Theology by Michael O'Carroll)
This is only a brief enclosure of the multitude of scientific studies done on the children (who are now adults and still see the visions). If you truly wish to read further and do Serious "voracious reading" then I can recommend a few books to you.
"Have these kids ever been questioned by anyone who wasn't desperately seeking proof of Divine Manifesations?"
I believe that notion has been thorougly dispelled by the above reply.
"By Scott's own admission, he was once deeply involved in New Age and Alien Theologies. Now, I like "The X-Files" as much as the next guy, and think that Yanni is a much more talented artist than he gets credit for, but I just can't see how anyone with more brain cells than teeth can fall into the trap of New Age/Alien Theology"
First off, let's be clear on the facts. You said "deeply involved". I don't ever remember using those words. I do remember saying that "the wrong books led me to the right ones" I did put a lot of thought, reading and study into New Age theology and the alien phenomenon. I found it fascinating and your analogous reference to the X-Files speaks volumes on just how much you have not read on this topic. That aside, I was dabbling at the time, wandering if you will. I was searching for something. I have always felt an inner call, call it God, call it conscience, call it whatever you wish. That inner call, which I believe we all have to some degree, though many tend to ignore it, led me along a rough and stony path to my own version of truth. But let me be clear here, either what we believe is right and true and just is right and true and just for all men or we are practicing hypocrisy. There is only one truth, there is only one reality. We may all have our own filters or mirrors which reflect our own interpretations of that reality, but it does not change the essence or degree of the reality itself. It simply is, and we shape it to match our own perceptions of the world and our place in accordance.
"And most importantly, having done this, I've learned that I have a responsibility to share what I've learned when I find people who need it. And I strongly suspect that you might need it, Scott"
I admire your resolve and your own quest to find happiness, but I'm afraid you're preaching to the choir. I've found happiness. I am "in happiness" if you will. I don't look at life with such dark lenses anymore. I believe all that we see and encounter is an illusion. Early on in your post you questioned trusting the words of children. Shouldn't we all live our lives like children. It is only in "growing up" that we begin to think we are in control of our own lives. I do not mean that we are not responsible for the choices we make and the consequences that inevitably follow. Rather I mean that we may choose to be a good husband, a loving father, a hard worker. On the way to work one day we get killed by a bus that we never saw coming. Does this make us bad or does it nullify all of the choices we made in our lives? No. But it is proof that we are not in complete control of our lives. We have a responsibility for control on our own behest, but that is not complete control. It is only a degree of control which makes us feel safe. In truth, we are never in control. We choose our own actions and our own desires, but that is not always in accordance with nature or with chance. God is in control (or whatever you wish to call him). We should be like children, if only we were so lucky. "Lean on God" that is what the Blessed Mother says, "be like children". We can put our trust in ourselves, but we are fallible, not to mention mortal. I think I'll put my trust in God.
"Scott: When you got into the New Age movement, did you think it had all the answers? Did you think it was the One, True Way? Did you think that everyone else should join you in it? Did you think that your life would be so much better if you simply did what you were told to do? How is what you're feeling now about Christianity any different?"
I believe I have replied to this question adequately and concisely above, but I will recap: How could I think it had all the answers? How could I know it was the true way? I wasn't sure even of the question or of the path. So how is what I feel about Christianity any different? When a man peers into mirrors seeking oneself he sees only reflections of unanswered questions, but when one finally glances upon light it pierces him with it's harshness and it's truth becomes the man.
"Understand this, Scott, if you understand nothing else I've said. I'm not saying these things here and on the Religion thread to mock your faith, or to ask you to renounce God, or even to come back and run the Forum again"
Understand this, I've understood everything you've said. My faith cannot be challenged nor can God and I never intend on coming back to run this place.
"but all the evidence I see from you indicates that you have simply found something else to bury yourself in as a means to hide from your problems. I'm saying it because I question if this is the right way for you to go about that goal, because you don't seem to have done so. I'm asking you these questions because you need to think about the answers; and if you don't like the answers you come up with, shouldn't that tell you something about the path you've chosen? I'm saying it because I see somebody in trouble, and it concerns me."
Hide from my problems? I do not know what problems you're referring to. The only problems I ever had, and I wouldn't call them problems, were an inability to see the truth that was right in my face all along. I've found my goal though I have not attained it. That is a gradual process which is worked upon throughout life. I know the truth, now I must seek to mold my thoughts and actions to that truth. That is the problem in our world. Everyone wants to be a god, their own god. So many do not want to conform to religion, but rather want religion to conform to them. That's not how it works. God doesn't fit his requirements around your daily planner. As for someone in trouble What I have just read leads me to believe the person who wrote it is in trouble because that person cannot trust in anything that he cannot see or touch. That is a hard way to go through life and I fear that little fruit will your branches bear if you continue with this mindset.
As far as the accusation that I start threads and do not respond to them, allow me to explain:
I don't need to respond to them. Faith, when attained at it's strongest point is knowledge. It ceases to be faith and becomes reality for the believer. I don't simply believe there is a God. I know there is a God. My only point in posting to this newsgroup is that the Blessed Mother has asked us to spread her messages, to become her pilgrims. And so I do as I have been asked. Your responses, criticisms, etc, etc. are very welcome, but I don't feel impelled to reply to them. My mind cannot be changed on this. It would be like telling me that trees don't grow on earth or that the moon is square in design. I appreciate that you like to discuss what I post, but for me it has no bearing. There can, for me, be no fruition to the responses as far as my own faith and beliefs are concerned. I am simply spreading a message. I do not feel called upon to rebut rebuttals. I hope this has given you some understanding of why I have not responded to previous posts in the past.
Peace be with all of you. Pray for peace. "Prayer can change the natural law. Prayer can stop wars." - Blessed Mother
Scott
Okay, I really didn't intend to post any further comments to this thread, but much of Malkalnod's reply is seriously errant. I mean no offense by that, but I feel I must reply as you are either misled or incomprehensive on several points. Though I hate to use the "quote from the previous post" and then reply in paragraph form such as Pamsfeet used to do on AMT (for those who remember), it is the only way that I can rebut concisely. So here goes:
"I've been to the www.medjugorjeusa.org site that Scott posted when he left, and the www.medjugorje.org that he mentions now, and as a person who reads voraciously about genuine investigations of paranormal activity, I can say with confidence that the place is a hoax"
First off, reading two websites about an encounter that has been happening since 1981 and to the present day, about which hundreds of books have been written and documentaries made -> that is hardly reading voraciously about the subject at hand. You have not even scratched the surface. Even if they do sell religious memorabilia, how does this make them charlatans? Have you seen the basket being passed around in Church? Everyone running an enterprise, noble or evil, needs some sort of fund to keep it in operation. I applaud them. Would you say that because donations are being taken for the tragedy in New York that they are ripping off the American public? I dare not think so. In order to maintain something, anything, that enterprise needs funds.
"They've discovered that thousands of people are willing to spend American dollars for the privilege of being told what they want to hear."
Again this is evident of your lack of serious investigation of the "phenomenon". People are not going there to hear what they want to hear. Communist atheists have gone there and been converted. Protestants (who do not believe in praying to Mary) have been converted. Priests who have come back from Medjugorje with a renewed vigor have converted many. The numbers are in the thousands. These, in and of themselves, are miracles. Please do not make blanket statements until you have assured yourself that what you are stating is fact and not stained with personal opinion.
"As for Scott's supposed miracles, I see little actual divine influence in them. The "Miracle of the Sun" can easily repeated by staring at any exposed light bulb. The glowing disc with a shining halo he describes is simply what happens when the rod and cone cells on your retina get overstimulated by staring at the light source. The pulsing and dancing effect arises when natural, otherwise imperceptible motions of the eye shift new rods and sones into the area of effect, and they become over-stimulated as well"
Either my explanation of this occurrence was lacking in description or you are mistaking me for an idiot that does not realize something far out of the ordinary when he sees it. This was not a light bulb. I have glanced at the sun many, many times. It has been in the sky since I was born
I have never, ever, seen the sun do what it did that day. This was not a wishful desire of the mind that willed something extraordinary from something very ordinary. I cannot be descriptive or convincing enough to describe it to you simply because it was beyond description. My written paraphrase of the encounter was far inadequate. Let me try again: I first saw people below me kneeling, crying and looking up at the sun. I turned and looked. I looked at it clearly. There was no squinting, no raised hands to block it's intensity. I looked at it as casually as if I were perusing a magazine rack. That was but the beginning. Within the sphere of the sun was a white host or circle that was purer than snow. It was encompassed by a golden globe. All around this was a hazy pink aura. The white circle was pulsating, like a heartbeat, within the golden globe. The globe itself was jumping around the sky sporadically. However much you wish to normalize the occurrence, it was anything but normal. "I must question the truth of Scott's accounts of the Rosary transmuting from silver to gold, and the light show on the Crucifix, but that is more due to Scott's actions. We have only his testimony to go on, and assertations on an internet discussion board aren't the sort of thing that holds up under close scrutiny. I can tell you all that I'm actually an astronaut or that I've had lengthy personal conversations with the Dali Lama, but that doesn't make it true, does it? I could even say that I'm not really a human being, but rather a highly evolved form of bicycle, couldn't I?"
Yes, you could say you were an astronaut or that you have had conversations with the Dali Lama....and that would accomplish what???
I have no reason to create prevarications. What possible benefit could I have for making bold-faced lies? I'm not being paid for this, I'm not seeking to win anyone over to an extremist religious faction I'm organizing. I'm not waging a war. Tell me, what possible reason do I have to lie about this? The very insinuation is ludicrous and evidentiary of a fear on your part that such a phenomenon had occurred and is currently occurring.
"Scott has a history of deception and duplicity on this forum, like: Posting religious harangues under the thread title "New Pics," coming back with a new screen name and pretending to be someone else for every post, etc. Not the actions of a forthright and truthful man, are they?"
I have a history of deception and duplicity on this forum? Not sure how long you've been around, but.....I created this forum. If I wanted someplace to create deceptions I would not have built a board centered on tickling. As for coming back with different screenames: The simple reason for that is I have always gone by "psycho4048" and used the password that went with it. I don't have the best memory for names and the accompanying passwords. In addition when I post these topics I usually don't intend to come back and make rebuttals to them. But when I feel impelled to I have to come up with a new screename and password because I have no idea as to the name or password I created before. This is me, and this is as truthful and open hearted as it gets. I am well aware that I'm opening myself to ridicule and slander. That comes with anyone speaking in adversity. It doesn't bother me. But personal attacks do not lend credence to your argument, but rather weaken it and reveal a fear of dealing with the actual topic at hand.
"Another area which calls the validity of this operation into question is the fact that the originators of the sightings were children. The testimony of children is notoriously suspect, since, seeking approval, they have a tendency to say whatever they think the questioner wants to hear."
Again, you have not done your research. Let me give you some examples:
"A number of doctors came independently to Medugorje from 1982 on, and studied the children carefully during the moment of ecstasy and in their normal life. Before this Fr Slavko Barberic OFM, who was later to become well-known as the visionaries spiritual guide, had examined them in the light of his specialized studies in social psychology - he has a doctorate in this field. He has concluded that the children behaved independently of one another and that there was no sign of hallucination. A Yugoslav doctor, Stopar, a specialist in psychiatry, hypnotherapy and parapsychology found the children 'to be absolutely normal'
Dr Maria Frederica Magatti studied the reaction to the stimuli in the moment of ecstasy was genuine and the neurological condition of the children was one of absolute normality. The same doctor noted three synchronous movements of the children at the time of the ecstasy: they fall to their knees at the same moment and then though their lips move they are not heard speaking; the sound of the voices return simultaneously to take up the Our Father at the third word, the first two having been intoned for them; their heads are raised and their eyes turned upwards at the end of the apparition all at the same time. She concludes: 'The first synchronous movement could be (I say 'could be', not 'is') explained by natural causes; the second and third, especially the second, are not naturally explainable and imply causes perceptible only to the visionaries and not to those observing them.'
In March 1984 Dr Mario Botta, a cardiac surgeon, took a cardiograph of one of the seers, Ivan, at the time of the ecstasy. He concluded that the ecstasy does not alter normal physiology, but transcends it, lifting the visionary on to a higher plane, which renders it impossible to apply the ordinary techniques of medical diagnosis. The conclusion: the phenomenon calls for openness of faith directly related to the Blessed Virgin, whom the visionaries see.
In general, the psychiatrist found no sign of hallucination, epileptic syndrome or any disorder which could change consciousness. The visionaries differ from those subjected to hypnosis by the fact that they remember exactly what takes place during the ecstasy, whereas people who are hypnotized forget what happened during their trance. They are not like spiritualistic mediums, who feel that they are taken over by another personality; on the contrary they retain their identity and manifest it in what they say." (Medjugorje - Facts, Documents, Theology by Michael O'Carroll)
This is only a brief enclosure of the multitude of scientific studies done on the children (who are now adults and still see the visions). If you truly wish to read further and do Serious "voracious reading" then I can recommend a few books to you.
"Have these kids ever been questioned by anyone who wasn't desperately seeking proof of Divine Manifesations?"
I believe that notion has been thorougly dispelled by the above reply.
"By Scott's own admission, he was once deeply involved in New Age and Alien Theologies. Now, I like "The X-Files" as much as the next guy, and think that Yanni is a much more talented artist than he gets credit for, but I just can't see how anyone with more brain cells than teeth can fall into the trap of New Age/Alien Theology"
First off, let's be clear on the facts. You said "deeply involved". I don't ever remember using those words. I do remember saying that "the wrong books led me to the right ones" I did put a lot of thought, reading and study into New Age theology and the alien phenomenon. I found it fascinating and your analogous reference to the X-Files speaks volumes on just how much you have not read on this topic. That aside, I was dabbling at the time, wandering if you will. I was searching for something. I have always felt an inner call, call it God, call it conscience, call it whatever you wish. That inner call, which I believe we all have to some degree, though many tend to ignore it, led me along a rough and stony path to my own version of truth. But let me be clear here, either what we believe is right and true and just is right and true and just for all men or we are practicing hypocrisy. There is only one truth, there is only one reality. We may all have our own filters or mirrors which reflect our own interpretations of that reality, but it does not change the essence or degree of the reality itself. It simply is, and we shape it to match our own perceptions of the world and our place in accordance.
"And most importantly, having done this, I've learned that I have a responsibility to share what I've learned when I find people who need it. And I strongly suspect that you might need it, Scott"
I admire your resolve and your own quest to find happiness, but I'm afraid you're preaching to the choir. I've found happiness. I am "in happiness" if you will. I don't look at life with such dark lenses anymore. I believe all that we see and encounter is an illusion. Early on in your post you questioned trusting the words of children. Shouldn't we all live our lives like children. It is only in "growing up" that we begin to think we are in control of our own lives. I do not mean that we are not responsible for the choices we make and the consequences that inevitably follow. Rather I mean that we may choose to be a good husband, a loving father, a hard worker. On the way to work one day we get killed by a bus that we never saw coming. Does this make us bad or does it nullify all of the choices we made in our lives? No. But it is proof that we are not in complete control of our lives. We have a responsibility for control on our own behest, but that is not complete control. It is only a degree of control which makes us feel safe. In truth, we are never in control. We choose our own actions and our own desires, but that is not always in accordance with nature or with chance. God is in control (or whatever you wish to call him). We should be like children, if only we were so lucky. "Lean on God" that is what the Blessed Mother says, "be like children". We can put our trust in ourselves, but we are fallible, not to mention mortal. I think I'll put my trust in God.
"Scott: When you got into the New Age movement, did you think it had all the answers? Did you think it was the One, True Way? Did you think that everyone else should join you in it? Did you think that your life would be so much better if you simply did what you were told to do? How is what you're feeling now about Christianity any different?"
I believe I have replied to this question adequately and concisely above, but I will recap: How could I think it had all the answers? How could I know it was the true way? I wasn't sure even of the question or of the path. So how is what I feel about Christianity any different? When a man peers into mirrors seeking oneself he sees only reflections of unanswered questions, but when one finally glances upon light it pierces him with it's harshness and it's truth becomes the man.
"Understand this, Scott, if you understand nothing else I've said. I'm not saying these things here and on the Religion thread to mock your faith, or to ask you to renounce God, or even to come back and run the Forum again"
Understand this, I've understood everything you've said. My faith cannot be challenged nor can God and I never intend on coming back to run this place.
"but all the evidence I see from you indicates that you have simply found something else to bury yourself in as a means to hide from your problems. I'm saying it because I question if this is the right way for you to go about that goal, because you don't seem to have done so. I'm asking you these questions because you need to think about the answers; and if you don't like the answers you come up with, shouldn't that tell you something about the path you've chosen? I'm saying it because I see somebody in trouble, and it concerns me."
Hide from my problems? I do not know what problems you're referring to. The only problems I ever had, and I wouldn't call them problems, were an inability to see the truth that was right in my face all along. I've found my goal though I have not attained it. That is a gradual process which is worked upon throughout life. I know the truth, now I must seek to mold my thoughts and actions to that truth. That is the problem in our world. Everyone wants to be a god, their own god. So many do not want to conform to religion, but rather want religion to conform to them. That's not how it works. God doesn't fit his requirements around your daily planner. As for someone in trouble
What I have just read leads me to believe the person who wrote it is in trouble because that person cannot trust in anything that he cannot see or touch. That is a hard way to go through life and I fear that little fruit will your branches bear if you continue with this mindset. As far as the accusation that I start threads and do not respond to them, allow me to explain:
I don't need to respond to them. Faith, when attained at it's strongest point is knowledge. It ceases to be faith and becomes reality for the believer. I don't simply believe there is a God. I know there is a God. My only point in posting to this newsgroup is that the Blessed Mother has asked us to spread her messages, to become her pilgrims. And so I do as I have been asked. Your responses, criticisms, etc, etc. are very welcome, but I don't feel impelled to reply to them. My mind cannot be changed on this. It would be like telling me that trees don't grow on earth or that the moon is square in design. I appreciate that you like to discuss what I post, but for me it has no bearing. There can, for me, be no fruition to the responses as far as my own faith and beliefs are concerned. I am simply spreading a message. I do not feel called upon to rebut rebuttals. I hope this has given you some understanding of why I have not responded to previous posts in the past.
Peace be with all of you. Pray for peace. "Prayer can change the natural law. Prayer can stop wars." - Blessed Mother
Scott
WallStreet
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 1,273
- Points
- 0
I'm hoping that this will be my last post on this section of the Forum. The only reason I'm here now is because I wanted to see what type of idiodic posts have been placed.
First off I have nothing personal against Scott/Return to Psycho/Whatever we're calling him this week. I hope he's found happiness in the little glass bubble he's crawled into. When he says his mind can't be changed on this and he accepts it like the trees growing I see something.
I have a friend who claims to be deeply religous. Anytime she's involved in a convo about religion she immedietly thinks she's the most authoritative person on the subject. If you differ with her opinion she gets a very strange look on her face like she shorted a circuit, kind of like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man when he can't watch Wopner. She says "No no no....that's not right". This girl has been emersed in this religous state for about 15 years now, and over the course of those years she has had more trouble than most people I know, including seeing her husband go to jail for murder.
When Psycho says his mind will not be changed it shows that the process of his being brainwashed is complete. My impression of his pre-religion posts was that he was probably a bad drunk. I think his quote line was "Crazy, no, just drunk" or something like that. When he decided to leave these vices he needed a substitute, much like when Willie Nelson stopped smoking ciggarettes and instead smoked twice as much pot. Somebody got a hold of Psycho's ear while he was in this vulnerable position and the results are plain for all of us to see. I'm not saying that he's fallen into the clutches of evil, I'm just saying that I've GOT to believe that at some point in time that some money left his pocket and went into somebody elses.
His transformation was not well paced. He went from one extreme to the other. Not only did he totally immerse himself in one thing, but he totally ran away from the other. Now he's back to tell us of our need for enlightenment.
In today's day and age with all the religous wars going on I don't think there's anything wrong with analizing the valdity of a religion before you embrace it. "It's God's law and we can't question it" is the attitude many have, though that is NOT a Scott quote. When someone says that their mind can't be changed it means they've stopped learning, and those who can't learn certainly shouldn't be teaching, or more importantly PREACHING.
First off I have nothing personal against Scott/Return to Psycho/Whatever we're calling him this week. I hope he's found happiness in the little glass bubble he's crawled into. When he says his mind can't be changed on this and he accepts it like the trees growing I see something.
I have a friend who claims to be deeply religous. Anytime she's involved in a convo about religion she immedietly thinks she's the most authoritative person on the subject. If you differ with her opinion she gets a very strange look on her face like she shorted a circuit, kind of like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man when he can't watch Wopner. She says "No no no....that's not right". This girl has been emersed in this religous state for about 15 years now, and over the course of those years she has had more trouble than most people I know, including seeing her husband go to jail for murder.
When Psycho says his mind will not be changed it shows that the process of his being brainwashed is complete. My impression of his pre-religion posts was that he was probably a bad drunk. I think his quote line was "Crazy, no, just drunk" or something like that. When he decided to leave these vices he needed a substitute, much like when Willie Nelson stopped smoking ciggarettes and instead smoked twice as much pot. Somebody got a hold of Psycho's ear while he was in this vulnerable position and the results are plain for all of us to see. I'm not saying that he's fallen into the clutches of evil, I'm just saying that I've GOT to believe that at some point in time that some money left his pocket and went into somebody elses.
His transformation was not well paced. He went from one extreme to the other. Not only did he totally immerse himself in one thing, but he totally ran away from the other. Now he's back to tell us of our need for enlightenment.
In today's day and age with all the religous wars going on I don't think there's anything wrong with analizing the valdity of a religion before you embrace it. "It's God's law and we can't question it" is the attitude many have, though that is NOT a Scott quote. When someone says that their mind can't be changed it means they've stopped learning, and those who can't learn certainly shouldn't be teaching, or more importantly PREACHING.
MistressMia
Verified
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2001
- Messages
- 1,248
- Points
- 38
No offense to Scott, but I agree with WallStreet(not in any certain words though). I probably would have dulled some edges, but nonetheless, we share the same opinion.
MadKalnod, thanks for bringing this thread back around and on track.
MadKalnod, thanks for bringing this thread back around and on track.
yeah........
.....I pretty much agree with wallstreet too.....and even though he probablly doesn't like me that much, that still doesn't sway me from the fact that I think his post was right on target......good job...
Later people.....
.....I pretty much agree with wallstreet too.....and even though he probablly doesn't like me that much, that still doesn't sway me from the fact that I think his post was right on target......good job...
Later people.....
WallStreet
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 1,273
- Points
- 0
Why wouldn't I like Everlast?
ReturntoGod
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2001
- Messages
- 43
- Points
- 0
"When Psycho says his mind will not be changed it shows that the process of his being brainwashed is complete. My impression of his pre-religion posts was that he was probably a bad drunk. I think his quote line was "Crazy, no, just drunk" or something like that. When he decided to leave these vices he needed a substitute, much like when Willie Nelson stopped smoking ciggarettes and instead smoked twice as much pot. Somebody got a hold of Psycho's ear while he was in this vulnerable position and the results are plain for all of us to see."
We are all psychologist in here You read far too much into a situation than what is really there. Don't over analyize or in so doing you may circumvent what you seek to find simply for the thrill of the analization. I have placed things on the table. You can try to play Freud all you want and look for symbolic meanings or an Oedupus Complex, but you're never going to find it. Now if you want to stop playing doctor and discuss something with the knowledge accredited you than I am more than willing.
S
We are all psychologist in here
You read far too much into a situation than what is really there. Don't over analyize or in so doing you may circumvent what you seek to find simply for the thrill of the analization. I have placed things on the table. You can try to play Freud all you want and look for symbolic meanings or an Oedupus Complex, but you're never going to find it. Now if you want to stop playing doctor and discuss something with the knowledge accredited you than I am more than willing.S
Ow, my friggin' head...
Okay, I originally told myself I'd never again get involved into a discussion about religion ('tis pointless, oh so pointless), but now I'm in just the right, rotten mood to go there - I just took my girlfriend to the international airport, won't be seeing her for three weeks, didn't have enough time to say goodbye nicely and thus am proud owner of a massive set of hurting blueballs (sorry for this abundance of icky info, ladies and gents), and she infected me with a nasty headcold, so jackhammers are playing a merry drumsolo in my cranium and I look like Rudolph the Reindeer (she'll get tickletortured out of her mind for being contagious, fer sure, but that'll be in three weeks, so it doesn't cheer me up much right now). Okay, so I'm in a lousy mood for all those reasons, and so I want to say something about something that bugs me - so here goes. (What a long intro. Sheesh.)
Religion. There are many different beliefs out there. All with different Dogma. Most of them claiming to be the one true belief. That, in and of itself, means one of three things.
1 - There is no god. None at all. This whole religion schtick is merely something made up by people who were either trying to cope with their own mortality by inventing fairy-tales, or people who constructed a guilt-and-fear system so devious that the peasants of their time would give them food and money for nothing but lies and threats. This worked so well that more and more systems like it sprang up... Bam, there we are, loads of religions.
2 - A total fumble. We got it all wrong. There is a god, but since there are so many different views about it, nobody can have it right (I mean, come on... translation of ancient texts and all that... so many different views... it's all gotta be faulty to some degree.) This means... well, if the deity is such a nasty bastard as many religions pait it (like, follow me - and only me - or burn), I guess that means we're all gonna burn, since we all got it wrong. Furthermore, don't you think a war between two civilizations, both following a totalitarian god (Crusades...) would have some sort of divine intervention? I mean, obviously that fictious figure up in the clouds cares little about you devout, now does it? If it did, it'd make sure those other guys would see that their deity really is a hoax... But no, it'll leave that work to some undereducated, overly zealous followers, trusting them to spread the word and crack heathen heads. Very. Likely. Indeed.
3 - Everyone's right. Yeah, lots of deities up there. All pretty impotent, obviously, since they don't do much, except for giving their names so stupid people can get rich quick from stupider people. And, of course, by sanctioning murder. I bet those hypothetical entities are really happy about that.
Me, I'm an atheist. No, don't pray for me, or I'll arrange for some local Satanists or whatever to sacrifice a cute kitten in your name, to pray to the Dark Lord of the Pit to take good care of your soul. (Offended? Well, that's how I feel when someone tells me he/she will pray for me. Thanks for listening.)
Why all this ranting? Because I'm sick of religion. I'm all for religion in and of itself. I'm just against using standardized Dogma to show you what and how to believe. I'm against organized religion, it will always be used to control, corrupt, and suppress personal freedom by self-proclaimed anointed or voices of god or whatever. Believe, if you need it, but don't band together or try to impose it on others. I'm so sick of it. I'm pro-human. Religion makes some people happy. Organized religion makes many people die. So can't we, as a race, the human race, once and for all do away with it? Probably not. Well, I guess the cockroaches will be triumphant in the end, ruling over a giantic dead boulder. I just hope for them they don't discover god, or their chances of survival will be radically reduced by internal warfare in no time at all.
Sorry folks, I needed to get this out of my head.
Okay, I originally told myself I'd never again get involved into a discussion about religion ('tis pointless, oh so pointless), but now I'm in just the right, rotten mood to go there - I just took my girlfriend to the international airport, won't be seeing her for three weeks, didn't have enough time to say goodbye nicely and thus am proud owner of a massive set of hurting blueballs (sorry for this abundance of icky info, ladies and gents), and she infected me with a nasty headcold, so jackhammers are playing a merry drumsolo in my cranium and I look like Rudolph the Reindeer (she'll get tickletortured out of her mind for being contagious, fer sure, but that'll be in three weeks, so it doesn't cheer me up much right now). Okay, so I'm in a lousy mood for all those reasons, and so I want to say something about something that bugs me - so here goes. (What a long intro. Sheesh.)
Religion. There are many different beliefs out there. All with different Dogma. Most of them claiming to be the one true belief. That, in and of itself, means one of three things.
1 - There is no god. None at all. This whole religion schtick is merely something made up by people who were either trying to cope with their own mortality by inventing fairy-tales, or people who constructed a guilt-and-fear system so devious that the peasants of their time would give them food and money for nothing but lies and threats. This worked so well that more and more systems like it sprang up... Bam, there we are, loads of religions.
2 - A total fumble. We got it all wrong. There is a god, but since there are so many different views about it, nobody can have it right (I mean, come on... translation of ancient texts and all that... so many different views... it's all gotta be faulty to some degree.) This means... well, if the deity is such a nasty bastard as many religions pait it (like, follow me - and only me - or burn), I guess that means we're all gonna burn, since we all got it wrong. Furthermore, don't you think a war between two civilizations, both following a totalitarian god (Crusades...) would have some sort of divine intervention? I mean, obviously that fictious figure up in the clouds cares little about you devout, now does it? If it did, it'd make sure those other guys would see that their deity really is a hoax... But no, it'll leave that work to some undereducated, overly zealous followers, trusting them to spread the word and crack heathen heads. Very. Likely. Indeed.
3 - Everyone's right. Yeah, lots of deities up there. All pretty impotent, obviously, since they don't do much, except for giving their names so stupid people can get rich quick from stupider people. And, of course, by sanctioning murder. I bet those hypothetical entities are really happy about that.
Me, I'm an atheist. No, don't pray for me, or I'll arrange for some local Satanists or whatever to sacrifice a cute kitten in your name, to pray to the Dark Lord of the Pit to take good care of your soul. (Offended? Well, that's how I feel when someone tells me he/she will pray for me. Thanks for listening.)
Why all this ranting? Because I'm sick of religion. I'm all for religion in and of itself. I'm just against using standardized Dogma to show you what and how to believe. I'm against organized religion, it will always be used to control, corrupt, and suppress personal freedom by self-proclaimed anointed or voices of god or whatever. Believe, if you need it, but don't band together or try to impose it on others. I'm so sick of it. I'm pro-human. Religion makes some people happy. Organized religion makes many people die. So can't we, as a race, the human race, once and for all do away with it? Probably not. Well, I guess the cockroaches will be triumphant in the end, ruling over a giantic dead boulder. I just hope for them they don't discover god, or their chances of survival will be radically reduced by internal warfare in no time at all.
Sorry folks, I needed to get this out of my head.
Flatfoot
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,479
- Points
- 36
Re: Ow, my friggin' head...
Bow before me, my children, for I shall lead you to the GREAT GARBAGE UTOPIA! Sorry. I'm easily amused. In all seriousness, I agree with some of what you said, Marauder. I want to add that being religious and believing in God are two different things, which many people don't understand. However, I realize I've already stated such in another post regarding Tickling vs. Religion, Guilt and Evil, so I feel that going into further description will be an exercise in redundance(not to mention it's getting late, so I don't feel like typing a long post. ). Did I even make a point in this post? I dunno. Oh well, if anybody doesn't think it's necessary they can delete it.
P.S. I'll tell you what, Marauder, I pray that your head cold goes away! (I'll be sure to check my front porch for a dead cat in the morning. )
Marauder said:
Bow before me, my children, for I shall lead you to the GREAT GARBAGE UTOPIA! Sorry. I'm easily amused. In all seriousness, I agree with some of what you said, Marauder. I want to add that being religious and believing in God are two different things, which many people don't understand. However, I realize I've already stated such in another post regarding Tickling vs. Religion, Guilt and Evil, so I feel that going into further description will be an exercise in redundance(not to mention it's getting late, so I don't feel like typing a long post. ). Did I even make a point in this post? I dunno. Oh well, if anybody doesn't think it's necessary they can delete it.P.S. I'll tell you what, Marauder, I pray that your head cold goes away!
(I'll be sure to check my front porch for a dead cat in the morning. )WallStreet
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 1,273
- Points
- 0
WallStradamus
I said that WallStreet would no longer post here. I am now known as WallStradamus, predictor of all that has yet to occur! Pretty impressive, eh?
WallStradamus should not be confused with Nostradamus, as my predictions will be much more accurate. WallStradamus should also not be mistaken for Sigmud Freud. We don't need Freud to see when someone has been brainwashed. Wait....I see a vision.
WallStradamus sees this thread going on and on with no conclusion.
WallStradamus sees many strange posts soon coming to the Non-Tickling Thread. Some funny, some angry, some just downright rude!
WallStradamus sees Mia and Myriads editing and deleting...editing and deleting...editing and deleting.
WallStradamus sees the local Go Go Bar will be closing in a few hours. WallStradamus must now go, but perhaps we'll see more mind boggling predictions in the future.
-------------
The predictions of WallStradamus are for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as actual fact. WallStreet will not be held responsible after the fruitation of any of WallStradamus' predictions as I have clearly stated that we are 2 different people.
I said that WallStreet would no longer post here. I am now known as WallStradamus, predictor of all that has yet to occur! Pretty impressive, eh?
WallStradamus should not be confused with Nostradamus, as my predictions will be much more accurate. WallStradamus should also not be mistaken for Sigmud Freud. We don't need Freud to see when someone has been brainwashed. Wait....I see a vision.
WallStradamus sees this thread going on and on with no conclusion.
WallStradamus sees many strange posts soon coming to the Non-Tickling Thread. Some funny, some angry, some just downright rude!
WallStradamus sees Mia and Myriads editing and deleting...editing and deleting...editing and deleting.
WallStradamus sees the local Go Go Bar will be closing in a few hours. WallStradamus must now go, but perhaps we'll see more mind boggling predictions in the future.
-------------
The predictions of WallStradamus are for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as actual fact. WallStreet will not be held responsible after the fruitation of any of WallStradamus' predictions as I have clearly stated that we are 2 different people.
ReturntoGod
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2001
- Messages
- 43
- Points
- 0
Re
Well, Wallstreet, or rather Wallstradamus, you've engaged me to debate my original post. I have done so. Let me loosen up on the old writing here though and be frank. Sometimes writing those long diatribes bores me Anyway, we have to have a sense of humor right? What would life be without laughter. I'm willing to laugh at myself and at this whole discussion/debate. I think it is comical - man's search for a higher identity. I believe it is deadly serious, but that does not mean it is without humor. I'm not as dry as I may come across in my posts. I like to joke and to poke fun. I am more than willing to laugh at myself and do so very often especially when I go back to search USENET on google and review how much my views have changed. I'm not surprised so many thing me nuts In the midst of all this "serious" talk, let's all take a minute or two to laugh at each other and accept that we're not selling nuclear arms or splitting the atom. We're just discussing something which, for many people, strikes a resounding chord.
Peace,
Scott
Well, Wallstreet, or rather Wallstradamus, you've engaged me to debate my original post. I have done so. Let me loosen up on the old writing here though and be frank. Sometimes writing those long diatribes bores me
Anyway, we have to have a sense of humor right? What would life be without laughter. I'm willing to laugh at myself and at this whole discussion/debate. I think it is comical - man's search for a higher identity. I believe it is deadly serious, but that does not mean it is without humor. I'm not as dry as I may come across in my posts. I like to joke and to poke fun. I am more than willing to laugh at myself and do so very often especially when I go back to search USENET on google and review how much my views have changed. I'm not surprised so many thing me nuts In the midst of all this "serious" talk, let's all take a minute or two to laugh at each other and accept that we're not selling nuclear arms or splitting the atom. We're just discussing something which, for many people, strikes a resounding chord.Peace,
Scott
MistressMia
Verified
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2001
- Messages
- 1,248
- Points
- 38
ha ha ha ...good one BallsStreet..I mean Wallstreet oops I mean WallStradamus. Wonder if my good friend WallStreet is ever going to come back and post to this thread? Hmmmm... lol
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
No fair, Wall Street! I wanted to call myself 'Halstradamus' in my next post, but you premeditated that joke!
BTW, Wallstradamus talks very much like Garfield in one of his disguises... LOL!
BTW, Wallstradamus talks very much like Garfield in one of his disguises... LOL!
ReturntoGod
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2001
- Messages
- 43
- Points
- 0
Re
You wanted a debate. I have given my reprisals. If you feel you're case bears merit I am more than willing to debate it. Fruitless though it may be.
You urged me to debate. I have debated. I await your response.
Peace,
Scott
You wanted a debate. I have given my reprisals. If you feel you're case bears merit I am more than willing to debate it. Fruitless though it may be.
You urged me to debate. I have debated. I await your response.
Peace,
Scott
Basics...
Shall we get down to basics.. "tastes great" vs "less filling" ? It is futile to "debate" religion because the arguments are based on assumptions that are assumed as facts....being unable to accept another persons set of assumptions will of course mean you will not accept their conclusions and facts, as they are seen by the person using the theoretically valid assumptions underlying their arguments and opinions.
Instead, let's agree that there is no debate and resume our lively discussion....a far more fruitful means of communication! "LET'S CHAT!"
If God Almighty shows up in ANY form I'll be ready for him/her/it also...I have MANY questions for that deity, lemme assure you!
Meanwhile, I am going to go on only ONE assumption...that we are well intentioned people who share many common interests and goals, who disagree on a few concepts.
Let 'er rip.... Q
Shall we get down to basics.. "tastes great" vs "less filling" ? It is futile to "debate" religion because the arguments are based on assumptions that are assumed as facts....being unable to accept another persons set of assumptions will of course mean you will not accept their conclusions and facts, as they are seen by the person using the theoretically valid assumptions underlying their arguments and opinions.
Instead, let's agree that there is no debate and resume our lively discussion....a far more fruitful means of communication! "LET'S CHAT!"
If God Almighty shows up in ANY form I'll be ready for him/her/it also...I have MANY questions for that deity, lemme assure you!
Meanwhile, I am going to go on only ONE assumption...that we are well intentioned people who share many common interests and goals, who disagree on a few concepts.
Let 'er rip.... Q
Last edited:
me too...
I must agree 100% with qjakal's sentiment. Although somewhat enjoyable as an exercise in polemics, "debating" religion cannot, by virtue of the intrinsic nature of religion, lead to a winner or loser. I mean, come on folks! Religion is called "FAITH-based" for a reason. Adherents operate on faith. What is and is not "true" cannot be determined with respect to something which, at its core, comes down to what each individual chooses, subjectively, to believe or not to believe.
I can see how it might be worthwhile to debate about whether one's view of a particular religion is or is not in keeping with traditional orthodoxies within that religion. In other words, we can argue about whether your opinion of the rites, rituals and beliefs of Christianity comport with what is said in the Bible. But even this argument has a propensity to lead to ridiculous hair-splitting, because much of the Bible (and other religious texts) are subject to multiple interpretations. Even more useless is to argue about whose religion is "right". Unless one of us is God, we have no way of knowing which religion (if any) is correct.
I must agree 100% with qjakal's sentiment. Although somewhat enjoyable as an exercise in polemics, "debating" religion cannot, by virtue of the intrinsic nature of religion, lead to a winner or loser. I mean, come on folks! Religion is called "FAITH-based" for a reason. Adherents operate on faith. What is and is not "true" cannot be determined with respect to something which, at its core, comes down to what each individual chooses, subjectively, to believe or not to believe.
I can see how it might be worthwhile to debate about whether one's view of a particular religion is or is not in keeping with traditional orthodoxies within that religion. In other words, we can argue about whether your opinion of the rites, rituals and beliefs of Christianity comport with what is said in the Bible. But even this argument has a propensity to lead to ridiculous hair-splitting, because much of the Bible (and other religious texts) are subject to multiple interpretations. Even more useless is to argue about whose religion is "right". Unless one of us is God, we have no way of knowing which religion (if any) is correct.
Strel... : )
Relax...Strel will be along in a minute to let you know if you are God. Or as a common author friend of ours might say.. "thou art God...how could it be be any other way?" Strel groks in fullness, and will answer our trivial questions when the time is filled!
Meanwhile, I'll throw one out there....the last point that MN brought in...as to which religion is "right" has been a discussion point forever. My view has always been that there CAN'T exist only one right religion...it would be paradoxical. Not going to expound on that, but let it sit out there like a big orange frog attracting potshots....get it folks! Q
Relax...Strel will be along in a minute to let you know if you are God. Or as a common author friend of ours might say.. "thou art God...how could it be be any other way?" Strel groks in fullness, and will answer our trivial questions when the time is filled!
Meanwhile, I'll throw one out there....the last point that MN brought in...as to which religion is "right" has been a discussion point forever. My view has always been that there CAN'T exist only one right religion...it would be paradoxical. Not going to expound on that, but let it sit out there like a big orange frog attracting potshots....get it folks! Q
Flatfoot
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,479
- Points
- 36
I think MN Tikl pretty much hit it on the head with anything I could have possibly said regarding faith versus religion. As far as there being a right one, well, how can there be a form of worship that isn't accepted by God? God is supposed to be a parental figure. Let's say that a person(Hypothetical ideal, not a case-by-case individual person) has two children, and one of them joins the military, eager to serve their country in combat. However, the other one decides to participate in war protests, peace rallies, etc. This parent, regardless of their personal opinions toward the goals of their children, will still love each child the same, unconditionally. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there are not sinners in the world who need to clean up their act a bit, but jumping on a particular bandwagon with dozens of other sheep isn't necessarily going to solve that. If one person's idea of worshipping God is to go to church every Sunday at 0800 and spout off some "Hail Mary's", sandwiched by a couple "Our Father's", and another person's idea of worshipping God is to dance around in a chicken suit in public to offer a sacrifice of pride through humiliation, can you really say either person will be less precious to God? If an older child paints a beautiful oil painted portrait of their mother, and that child's toddler sibling makes a crayon stick figure drawing for their mother, is either gift rejected? Not likely. I could think of plenty more parental analogies to refer to God, but I'd be beating my point to death, so I'll end it now, hoping I didn't offend anybody with my personal opinion about God.
P.S. Just for the record, I'm a Confirmed Roman Catholic, though I do not accept all the Catholic precepts. I am guilty of missing out on church for a little more than a year, but I still talk to God every night, relying on my conscience to tell me that I may have done something wrong and need to apologize to him/her.
P.S. Just for the record, I'm a Confirmed Roman Catholic, though I do not accept all the Catholic precepts. I am guilty of missing out on church for a little more than a year, but I still talk to God every night, relying on my conscience to tell me that I may have done something wrong and need to apologize to him/her.
WTF???
I thought you were done with the tickling community scott?? Leave us alone then.....if you wanna spout off that christian nonsense then do it somewhere else.....you obviously still like tickling otherwise you would not keep posting here.....OR be a moderator of the anime tickling forum. Explain that, pastor
I thought you were done with the tickling community scott?? Leave us alone then.....if you wanna spout off that christian nonsense then do it somewhere else.....you obviously still like tickling otherwise you would not keep posting here.....OR be a moderator of the anime tickling forum. Explain that, pastor
ReturntoGod
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2001
- Messages
- 43
- Points
- 0
Krokus wrote:
"I thought you were done with the tickling community scott?? Leave us alone then.....if you wanna spout off that christian nonsense then do it somewhere else.....you obviously still like tickling otherwise you would not keep posting here.....OR be a moderator of the anime tickling forum. Explain that, pastor"
I am done with the tickling community Krokus, as an active participant. Let's clear up a few things first though. I'm not a pastor. I am a seminarian. I am not a moderator at the Anime tickling forum. In fact I haven't spoken with those people or even been to the site in almost a year. Your facts are not straight. Secondly, I do still like tickling. It is a desire of the flesh. But we are not simply beings of flesh. We possess a dual nature - physical and spiritual. The physical nature is subject to the temptaions of the flesh and is constantly battling with the spiritual which could, in a sense, be called the conscience. That is the ultimate battle. That is what theologians and philosophers have been writing about for centuries. St. Augstine, in his book "Confessions", talked at length about this. He had a very hard time in quitting the physical sins against God. What we are talking about brings the line from an old prayer "chastise my rebellious senses" In order to move closer to God we must check our physical desires and cravings. None of those things can we take with us. We must seek to elevate ourselves spiritually beyond the cravings of the flesh.
In answer to your final question/demand "keep it brief" - My answer is no. For your sake, and everyone else's sake this is something that has to be talked about. I'm a sinner too. We all are. There are no saints roaming the forum walls. But we can help each other. That's my only intent. If you don't like it I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stop trying to guide others to the path of Christ.
Scott
http://www.scott.skullbytes.com/
"I thought you were done with the tickling community scott?? Leave us alone then.....if you wanna spout off that christian nonsense then do it somewhere else.....you obviously still like tickling otherwise you would not keep posting here.....OR be a moderator of the anime tickling forum. Explain that, pastor"
I am done with the tickling community Krokus, as an active participant. Let's clear up a few things first though. I'm not a pastor. I am a seminarian. I am not a moderator at the Anime tickling forum. In fact I haven't spoken with those people or even been to the site in almost a year. Your facts are not straight. Secondly, I do still like tickling. It is a desire of the flesh. But we are not simply beings of flesh. We possess a dual nature - physical and spiritual. The physical nature is subject to the temptaions of the flesh and is constantly battling with the spiritual which could, in a sense, be called the conscience. That is the ultimate battle. That is what theologians and philosophers have been writing about for centuries. St. Augstine, in his book "Confessions", talked at length about this. He had a very hard time in quitting the physical sins against God. What we are talking about brings the line from an old prayer "chastise my rebellious senses" In order to move closer to God we must check our physical desires and cravings. None of those things can we take with us. We must seek to elevate ourselves spiritually beyond the cravings of the flesh.
In answer to your final question/demand "keep it brief" - My answer is no. For your sake, and everyone else's sake this is something that has to be talked about. I'm a sinner too. We all are. There are no saints roaming the forum walls. But we can help each other. That's my only intent. If you don't like it I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stop trying to guide others to the path of Christ.
Scott
http://www.scott.skullbytes.com/
Last edited:
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,820
- Points
- 0
Sheesh! Here we are, back up near the top again. OK, Q, you asked for it!
Religious revivalism was fairly common in the camps of both the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. One story, told by both Bruce Catton (of NY soldiers) and Shelby Foote (of Tenn. soldiers), had to do with a preacher's sermon saying that anyone who didn't get right with God (i. e. see things the preacher's way) was bound for hell. The colonel had him arrested and brought to headquarters. The colonel told him, "You'll preach no more such doctrine in my regiment. All of these men are fighting in a just cause, and they're all going to heaven if they're killed."
I don't imagine that God concerned Himself overmuch on doctrinal matters on 9/11. More likely, He just detailed off some more help for Peter, to get everyone through the gate faster.
Strelnikov
Religious revivalism was fairly common in the camps of both the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. One story, told by both Bruce Catton (of NY soldiers) and Shelby Foote (of Tenn. soldiers), had to do with a preacher's sermon saying that anyone who didn't get right with God (i. e. see things the preacher's way) was bound for hell. The colonel had him arrested and brought to headquarters. The colonel told him, "You'll preach no more such doctrine in my regiment. All of these men are fighting in a just cause, and they're all going to heaven if they're killed."
I don't imagine that God concerned Himself overmuch on doctrinal matters on 9/11. More likely, He just detailed off some more help for Peter, to get everyone through the gate faster.
Strelnikov
Valhalla....
I'm hoping for an afterlife with heroic struggles, mighty enemies that nearly defeat you before you crush them, and of course ticklish houris by the dozens. The company of other stout (oh yeah..that's EXACTLY how I meant it buddy) warriors to recount the tales with and jest away the idle hours would be nice also. As long as we're on the subject, there'd be NO summer reruns either....all new all the time! Valhalla awaits us!! Q
I'm hoping for an afterlife with heroic struggles, mighty enemies that nearly defeat you before you crush them, and of course ticklish houris by the dozens. The company of other stout (oh yeah..that's EXACTLY how I meant it buddy) warriors to recount the tales with and jest away the idle hours would be nice also. As long as we're on the subject, there'd be NO summer reruns either....all new all the time! Valhalla awaits us!! Q
Ticklish9's
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Messages
- 1,266
- Points
- 0
Interesting post...
A message to Scott - your goal of leading people to Christ is admirable, one of the highest callings a man can have. Your method is what has angered people.
I experienced no anger or rage at reading your post - but I'm a Christian and so agree with you on the basic premise of the existence of a caring God. I'm also a person who has been, in order, a Catholic,a pagan, an agnostic, and an atheist, before coming to perhaps the most important realization of my young life - no religion is right. NOt a single one. The reason? Any device which is used to divide man rather than unite him is not properly acknowledging God. It is each human beings responsibility to find the faith, for it is the faith that will make the difference. In the war between dark and light, good and evil, and so forth, the best - indeed, only - weapons our side has are thus - mercy; compassion; pity; forgiveness. Nuking some Taliban fanatics isn't going to end terrorism; and even though I am a member of the military currently ravaging Afghanistan and even, to a certain extent, understand that it is a gesture that must be made, I reject military conflict as a means to wage war on terrorism. Not because I'm "soft" or "weak", or even a liberal (Vote libertarian! ) but as a sheer matter of finding what's effective.
A message to Scott - your goal of leading people to Christ is admirable, one of the highest callings a man can have. Your method is what has angered people.
I experienced no anger or rage at reading your post - but I'm a Christian and so agree with you on the basic premise of the existence of a caring God. I'm also a person who has been, in order, a Catholic,a pagan, an agnostic, and an atheist, before coming to perhaps the most important realization of my young life - no religion is right. NOt a single one. The reason? Any device which is used to divide man rather than unite him is not properly acknowledging God. It is each human beings responsibility to find the faith, for it is the faith that will make the difference. In the war between dark and light, good and evil, and so forth, the best - indeed, only - weapons our side has are thus - mercy; compassion; pity; forgiveness. Nuking some Taliban fanatics isn't going to end terrorism; and even though I am a member of the military currently ravaging Afghanistan and even, to a certain extent, understand that it is a gesture that must be made, I reject military conflict as a means to wage war on terrorism. Not because I'm "soft" or "weak", or even a liberal (Vote libertarian!
) but as a sheer matter of finding what's effective.
