Question:
Harvey, Could you please top post so as to avoid the lenghty screens…? Again, I only have a backspace key to delete characters one by one oon this connection an can not delete old text…. My bday went well, was a fun day of giggles, smiles and laughter and awe for seing asl-ers imagination at work for the Grand Occasion:), and their thoughtfulness, too, yours among:) I was trying to think of a way to express what I mean better, last night and came up wiht this start of a thought. While christianity sets God as the creator of all that is, i.e. as the Prime Cause, it is from there a way of life based on directives. To write soemthign sayign that ETs woudl have created earth or man, for instance, woudl then be like presenting a Prime Cause, *but not a way of life*. I do not know if you think of writing about the way of life that would come with believing ETs are the creators. Therfore to me the beliefs are not just different for their "prime cause", but for their "way of life". One can sure present different Prime Causes. Science is after all already doing that. Yet a scientist can believe in God just as much as a christian can see science for what it is. Accepting the other’s view does not require giving up their own beliefs, nor a need to attack them. Just like aples fell to the ground weay before the law of gravity was defined by science, science can help define the origin of things and galaxies, without infirming that those too were created. Christinas then go on believing that a Prime cause to that other thing that caused the creation of that other still remains. And science did also discover Lucy, a female skeleton of millions of years (sic), infirming their own belief about when mankind started on earth and pushing it back by millins of years where they had thought it hundreds of thousands of years only before. More, they found that Lucy’s ADN is the one all human beigns come from without exception. There, who knows if what science calls Lucy is not what christianity refered to as Eve? Soem scientists will argue no way, some christians will argue no way, yet one does not infirm the other so much as it "joins" them in that example. Einstein himself believed in God if he was the greatest physicist of his time, and many believe, still the greatest one yet. Hos own knoelsdge of science did not make it so his belief in God vanished, if it maybe made it change and transform through time, like his science beliefs did make cristians’ understanding of the creation of the world transofrm too. Wihout one irradicating the other, cause they are of a different nature and scope and perspective. Anyway. I still am tryign to get acccross to you what I mean but find that you are closed minded on this, on hearing me say that you do not have to talk about christianity when talking about ETs and space ships. One sure can. But *as an editor*, for what I saw so far of your goal with your book, which, granted, is not much as my questiosn are left unanswered and interpreted as per YOUR frusration with christianity rather than your reading the words without tagging concepts and intentiosn and all on it, as an editor, I think so far that yould be better off presentign your ideas about the topic of the unexplained, rather than show flawed reasonings in some religion or belief system that is not your topic, and then use the same exact flawed reasonings you pointed to yourself to *sustain* your own view of your own belief. It simply would be seen as ""preaching"" in that it would say "do as I say, not as I do. Use these reasonings only about MY belief, cause using the same about yours is wrong". I dunno how else to try and say it, so from here on, I will just say "Glad you still are writing", when you are. I’ll just add this before. Some of the books on the unexplained I liked reading as they allowed me to dream and imagine nd all that. Most of them though I was sorry I bought for how tendencious and nonsensical the reasonigns in them were, and how manipulative and double standard their presentation of things was. As well, not ONE christian sees or interret the Bible or New Testament the saem way, not ONE, where then attacking this sort of statistical belief as you are glues to not oen of them by the same token, and looks prejudicially ignorant. To want to show the flaws in a belief based on soem teachings written in some book, oen woudl have to not only read that book, but learn of the various interpretations and religions among christianity. Some allow divorce and it does not shock their christian belief and some do no for instance. And even those practicing a christian religion will either do it gong to church or not, believing in theuir church or in the Word itself, etc, etc, on top of often disagreing wholeheasrtdly wiht "their" chrich believign in divorce or not, etc, etc. In short, to criticize the christian belief, one woudl ahve to know who Chroist is, what Chrost said, ie. read the New Testament, then read the old to see why SOME christian religiosn believe this more than that interpretation of the words in the NT, then grasp the variety of beliefs and what the GLUE is between them all that makes them christian, beyond the dogma only, as not one parishioner of any christian religion interpret the words the same way. Too many already are trying to impose their interpretation down the neighbor;s throat. To deplore that while shoving yours in their thtroat in place would be nonsensical in my view and counterproductive, on top of making your own arguments weaker. Therefore as an editor and after seing the reasnings you use both to try and show flaws in other people;s beliefs, and seing you use the exact same reasonings, just taggign different objects on the samereasonings, to defend yours, I just am sayign you better stick to your topic and only expose the ideas of your topic, make your purpose clear to yourself. Yould not want to end upw riting one more book about christianity I think…?;-) Then why darn do it…???:) As Chloe, I;d just say this. Seems it might be some sort of fear that makes you think it "necessity" to attack christian beliefs in your book. What is that fear? What is it about? Why? What re you afraid coudl happen aroudn your book regarding christians? Is it a fear of rejection? What..? Perhaps havign a good look at that woudl be helpeful, to be sure oen writs about ideas as he aims at and not at emotions of fear…? And perhaps making the two topics two different books woudl better reach your goal and keeep you on topic about your ET/Unexplained interest/ideas/passion. Over and out on that topic. Chloe Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <cidbt7$s2…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>> In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>> says… >>>>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>>>> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>>>> says… >>> snipped >>>>> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >>>>> have to give you a raincheck on this. >>>>> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >>>>> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >>>>> already. >>>>But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >>>>yo have or not? >>>>I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >>>>how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >>>>Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >>>>in credo, religion and all? Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >>>>I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >>>>can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >>>>the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >>>>on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >>>>biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >>>>that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >>>>belief for me. >>>>Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >>>>have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >>>>to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >>>>to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >>>>accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >>>>pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >>>>already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >>>>things sometimes). >>>>So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >>>>them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >>>>presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >>>>Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >>>>get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >>>>the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >>>>they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >>>>so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >>>>differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about > differences. >>>> > > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >>>>Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >>>>christian at all. >>>>Lets see what this oen had to say. >>>> >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all
… read more »
Response:
In article <cidbt7$s2…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says… >>>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>>> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>>> says… >> snipped >>>> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >>>> have to give you a raincheck on this. >>>> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >>>> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >>>> already. >>>But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >>>yo have or not? >>>I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >>>how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >>>Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >>>in credo, religion and all? Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >>>I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >>>can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >>>the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >>>on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >>>biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >>>that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >>>belief for me. >>>Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >>>have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >>>to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >>>to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >>>accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >>>pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >>>already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >>>things sometimes). >>>So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >>>them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >>>presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >>>Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >>>get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >>>the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >>>they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >>>so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >>>differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about differences. >>> > > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >>>Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >>>christian at all. >>>Lets see what this oen had to say. >>> >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all others >>>>>>>>came from. >>>All others on earth, says Genesis. Old Testament. Not christianity that >>>one is part of per se. Aain, Christianity is about what Chrost said. If it >>>ainlt about Christ,s techings, then they shoudl call it Biblality or >>>something;-). >>>>>>>>They sinned and sin entered into them causing them to die in their >>>>>>>>spirits immediatly. >>>Not in the Bible, that interpretation of their spirits dying immediately >>>notr is it Christian to think that ’sin entered someone". One sins, sin >>>does not ""enter them passively"". >>>Why concentrat on sins? Christinaity is not about sins not the devil yet >>>so many will have sin and devil in every sentence they say about it all;-) >>>Its ironic to say one loves God and to talk about the dfevil all the time:) >>>Or about sin:). >>>>> Their physical death followed later. >>>Interpreation and I gotta scartch my head to fnd where that one read this. >>>They were made mortal the OLD TESTAMENT said, for having touched of the >>>tree of knowledge of right and wrong. But they lived hundreds of years, >>>and sayign that their spirits died right away is news to me;-) >>>I am not God though and dunno the Bible by heart, but I sure find this a >>>new concept. Wonder what religion/dogma it stems from. >>> The dominion >>>>>>>>of the world that had been given to them passed to Satan. >>>Sigh…. >>>Sin, the devil, Satan…. >>>>>>>>Sin passed from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants, including >>>>>>>>you and me. >>>Sin again…. >>>>>>>>God restored all of this through Jesus Christ. (Jesus was God came to >>>>>>>>earth as a human). He lived in a human body subject to sin. He had a >>>>>>>>spirit from God and lived by His spirit and did not sin. He paid the >>>>>>>>price of death for each one of us so that we could by faith >>>>>>>>appropriate His sinlessness and be reconciled to God. >>>From "he paid" to the rest, that is how most interpret it, yes. However if >>>poeple take into account what apostle started that, they will see that >>>it was an influnce of the belief in the Old Testament anouncing a >>>messiah, and in a religion of those days that said that the messiah >>>woudl sacrofice himself for the good/soul of others. The old notion of >>>sacrifice. They still did sacrifices all the tiem in Jesus’s days. >>>Yet if he respected that custom, he preched about learnbign to cut it out. >>>To learn to have compassion and not scarifice, adding "If only we coudl >>>understand that". >>>>>>>>Death could not hold Him down. He was resurrected and went to be with >>>>>>>>God. He is coming back to put an end to sin, Satan and all evil. >>>Erm. Above ths last paragraph, earlier in his post, did that poster nt say it >>>had already been done? Sounds like JW to me. Accent on sin, on the devil, >>>on the restored world and so on still to come. >>> The >>>>>>>>earth will be restored…. We will all give an account of our lives >>>>>>>>and be judged by Him. There will be no secrets hidden. >>>"As you judge, so shall you be judged". >>>It then is not just God judging in that sentence;-) >>>The secrets hidden, well, that must be taken from "nothign is unknown to >>>God" and "Nothign is in the darkness save what will coem to light" >>>paraphrasing as I read it mostly in French if I did the incursions in the >>>english veriions quite a few times too. But it does not say that it will >>>be revealed to everyoen else. That woudl be humiliation and not love. >>>"If your neighbor in the night knocks on your door to ask a bread for >>>unecxpected visitors, will you not give him some? Even more so if it was >>>your child asking for bread. Then how coudl God give his children less". >>>If a parent can give his child forgiveness then how much more God, tehn. >>>>>>>>The Bible has stood the test of time. Thousands of years. Lives >>>>>>>>changed. Jesus called it the Word of God. >>>Lives changed all right, In the name of the letter milliosn were killed >>>through the centuries, s;ayed in the supposed name of enlighment and God;s >>>word. Yet CHRIST gave the commandments, not as in the Old testament (an >>>eye for an eye and so on), but 5 or 6 of them depending on the apostle >>>that speaks and lists them. Among any list that Christ si said to have >>>given is "Do not kill". >>>Livs were derstroyed by those who thought they coudl kill in the name of >>>love cause they were "christians" and coudl do it in the name of God’s >>>word. Yet the word is DO NOT KILL. It was so way back, and remained so. >>>Yes, it was carried through two milleniae. But it was not heard too much. >>>How many died today killed in the world? Wars, and murders and all that? >>>The spirit of the word is not seen much at all. The letter, oh, the >> letter…. >>>That is too often seen and used to justify even lkilling anbd calling it >>>"passing the test of time". Lacks humility somewhat, that. >>> > > And this is what he also says > >>>>>I will repeat myself: When you want to find out about God. Seek Him. >>>>>Not from someone who is going to give you their idea of what they >>>>>think He is. >>>Sounds liek a preacher to dsay this after giving his idea and >> interpretation:) >>>They may be right, or they may not. It is better to seek >>>>>Him direct. Seek Him sincerely. He is contactable. That is what >>>>>Christianity is all about. It’s not about religion. It is about a >>>>>relationship with God. >>>That is right. Sounds right to me. >>>> You can’t reason with him at all — I don’t propose anything new, >>>> I say – use common sense and simple logic, which he rejects straightaway. >>>Not a chirstian attitude that. Such close-mindedness. >>>See, that happens whn people think THEUIR belief is THE Truth rather than >>>see it is THEIR turth or THEIR belief. >>>Why woudl you want to try and do likie him, i.e. try and pu8sh your belief >>>in other poeple;s throat? Why not expose your belief and what you rest it >>>on and simply present it as it is? YOUR beliegf. Or just present the >>>various things that sustain the possibility of ETs having been here >>>before, whatever, and donlt add the "you must/they must believ me!" or "I >>>must convince christians!" or whatever other kind of faith/believers. >>>Unpleasant to be shoved a belioef down one;s throat, innit? >>>Why try and compete in that? >>>> I say ‘the bible is not a camera’ – it does not record what is written. >>>> How can it? Unless you believe everyone involved with writing, editing >>>> and translating the bible, was guided by the ‘holy spirit’ ALL the time. >>>The thing is to see the words and
… read more »
Response:
Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>> says… > snipped >>> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >>> have to give you a raincheck on this. >>> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >>> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >>> already. >>But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >>yo have or not? >>I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >>how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >>Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >>in credo, religion and all? Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >>I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >>can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >>the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >>on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >>biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >>that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >>belief for me. >>Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >>have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >>to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >>to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >>accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >>pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >>already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >>things sometimes). >>So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >>them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >>presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >>Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >>get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >>the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >>they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >>so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >>differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about differences. >> > > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >>Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >>christian at all. >>Lets see what this oen had to say. >> >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all others >>>>>>>came from. >>All others on earth, says Genesis. Old Testament. Not christianity that >>one is part of per se. Aain, Christianity is about what Chrost said. If it >>ainlt about Christ,s techings, then they shoudl call it Biblality or >>something;-). >>>>>>>They sinned and sin entered into them causing them to die in their >>>>>>>spirits immediatly. >>Not in the Bible, that interpretation of their spirits dying immediately >>notr is it Christian to think that ’sin entered someone". One sins, sin >>does not ""enter them passively"". >>Why concentrat on sins? Christinaity is not about sins not the devil yet >>so many will have sin and devil in every sentence they say about it all;-) >>Its ironic to say one loves God and to talk about the dfevil all the time:) >>Or about sin:). >>>> Their physical death followed later. >>Interpreation and I gotta scartch my head to fnd where that one read this. >>They were made mortal the OLD TESTAMENT said, for having touched of the >>tree of knowledge of right and wrong. But they lived hundreds of years, >>and sayign that their spirits died right away is news to me;-) >>I am not God though and dunno the Bible by heart, but I sure find this a >>new concept. Wonder what religion/dogma it stems from. >> The dominion >>>>>>>of the world that had been given to them passed to Satan. >>Sigh…. >>Sin, the devil, Satan…. >>>>>>>Sin passed from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants, including >>>>>>>you and me. >>Sin again…. >>>>>>>God restored all of this through Jesus Christ. (Jesus was God came to >>>>>>>earth as a human). He lived in a human body subject to sin. He had a >>>>>>>spirit from God and lived by His spirit and did not sin. He paid the >>>>>>>price of death for each one of us so that we could by faith >>>>>>>appropriate His sinlessness and be reconciled to God. >>From "he paid" to the rest, that is how most interpret it, yes. However if >>poeple take into account what apostle started that, they will see that >>it was an influnce of the belief in the Old Testament anouncing a >>messiah, and in a religion of those days that said that the messiah >>woudl sacrofice himself for the good/soul of others. The old notion of >>sacrifice. They still did sacrifices all the tiem in Jesus’s days. >>Yet if he respected that custom, he preched about learnbign to cut it out. >>To learn to have compassion and not scarifice, adding "If only we coudl >>understand that". >>>>>>>Death could not hold Him down. He was resurrected and went to be with >>>>>>>God. He is coming back to put an end to sin, Satan and all evil. >>Erm. Above ths last paragraph, earlier in his post, did that poster nt say it >>had already been done? Sounds like JW to me. Accent on sin, on the devil, >>on the restored world and so on still to come. >> The >>>>>>>earth will be restored…. We will all give an account of our lives >>>>>>>and be judged by Him. There will be no secrets hidden. >>"As you judge, so shall you be judged". >>It then is not just God judging in that sentence;-) >>The secrets hidden, well, that must be taken from "nothign is unknown to >>God" and "Nothign is in the darkness save what will coem to light" >>paraphrasing as I read it mostly in French if I did the incursions in the >>english veriions quite a few times too. But it does not say that it will >>be revealed to everyoen else. That woudl be humiliation and not love. >>"If your neighbor in the night knocks on your door to ask a bread for >>unecxpected visitors, will you not give him some? Even more so if it was >>your child asking for bread. Then how coudl God give his children less". >>If a parent can give his child forgiveness then how much more God, tehn. >>>>>>>The Bible has stood the test of time. Thousands of years. Lives >>>>>>>changed. Jesus called it the Word of God. >>Lives changed all right, In the name of the letter milliosn were killed >>through the centuries, s;ayed in the supposed name of enlighment and God;s >>word. Yet CHRIST gave the commandments, not as in the Old testament (an >>eye for an eye and so on), but 5 or 6 of them depending on the apostle >>that speaks and lists them. Among any list that Christ si said to have >>given is "Do not kill". >>Livs were derstroyed by those who thought they coudl kill in the name of >>love cause they were "christians" and coudl do it in the name of God’s >>word. Yet the word is DO NOT KILL. It was so way back, and remained so. >>Yes, it was carried through two milleniae. But it was not heard too much. >>How many died today killed in the world? Wars, and murders and all that? >>The spirit of the word is not seen much at all. The letter, oh, the > letter…. >>That is too often seen and used to justify even lkilling anbd calling it >>"passing the test of time". Lacks humility somewhat, that. >> > > And this is what he also says > >>>>I will repeat myself: When you want to find out about God. Seek Him. >>>>Not from someone who is going to give you their idea of what they >>>>think He is. >>Sounds liek a preacher to dsay this after giving his idea and > interpretation:) >>They may be right, or they may not. It is better to seek >>>>Him direct. Seek Him sincerely. He is contactable. That is what >>>>Christianity is all about. It’s not about religion. It is about a >>>>relationship with God. >>That is right. Sounds right to me. >>> You can’t reason with him at all — I don’t propose anything new, >>> I say – use common sense and simple logic, which he rejects straightaway. >>Not a chirstian attitude that. Such close-mindedness. >>See, that happens whn people think THEUIR belief is THE Truth rather than >>see it is THEIR turth or THEIR belief. >>Why woudl you want to try and do likie him, i.e. try and pu8sh your belief >>in other poeple;s throat? Why not expose your belief and what you rest it >>on and simply present it as it is? YOUR beliegf. Or just present the >>various things that sustain the possibility of ETs having been here >>before, whatever, and donlt add the "you must/they must believ me!" or "I >>must convince christians!" or whatever other kind of faith/believers. >>Unpleasant to be shoved a belioef down one;s throat, innit? >>Why try and compete in that? >>> I say ‘the bible is not a camera’ – it does not record what is written. >>> How can it? Unless you believe everyone involved with writing, editing >>> and translating the bible, was guided by the ‘holy spirit’ ALL the time. >>The thing is to see the words and letters, sure, but to get the spirit of it. >>That not many get to… >>> That is the only way it can be 100% accurate and infallible – and it simply >>> isn’t… >>To claim it is would be silly. It is incomplete, for one thing. >>But see, to atack beliefs with that reasonign is not help;poing yours, as
… read more »
Response:
In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… >Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says…
snipped – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >> have to give you a raincheck on this. >> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >> already. >But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >yo have or not? >I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >in credo, religion and all? Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >belief for me. >Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >things sometimes). >So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about differences. > > > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >christian at all. >Lets see what this oen had to say. > >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all others >>>>>>came from. >All others on earth, says Genesis. Old Testament. Not christianity that >one is part of per se. Aain, Christianity is about what Chrost said. If it >ainlt about Christ,s techings, then they shoudl call it Biblality or >something;-). >>>>>>They sinned and sin entered into them causing them to die in their >>>>>>spirits immediatly. >Not in the Bible, that interpretation of their spirits dying immediately >notr is it Christian to think that ’sin entered someone". One sins, sin >does not ""enter them passively"". >Why concentrat on sins? Christinaity is not about sins not the devil yet >so many will have sin and devil in every sentence they say about it all;-) >Its ironic to say one loves God and to talk about the dfevil all the time:) >Or about sin:). >>> Their physical death followed later. >Interpreation and I gotta scartch my head to fnd where that one read this. >They were made mortal the OLD TESTAMENT said, for having touched of the >tree of knowledge of right and wrong. But they lived hundreds of years, >and sayign that their spirits died right away is news to me;-) >I am not God though and dunno the Bible by heart, but I sure find this a >new concept. Wonder what religion/dogma it stems from. > The dominion >>>>>>of the world that had been given to them passed to Satan. >Sigh…. >Sin, the devil, Satan…. >>>>>>Sin passed from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants, including >>>>>>you and me. >Sin again…. >>>>>>God restored all of this through Jesus Christ. (Jesus was God came to >>>>>>earth as a human). He lived in a human body subject to sin. He had a >>>>>>spirit from God and lived by His spirit and did not sin. He paid the >>>>>>price of death for each one of us so that we could by faith >>>>>>appropriate His sinlessness and be reconciled to God. >From "he paid" to the rest, that is how most interpret it, yes. However if >poeple take into account what apostle started that, they will see that >it was an influnce of the belief in the Old Testament anouncing a >messiah, and in a religion of those days that said that the messiah >woudl sacrofice himself for the good/soul of others. The old notion of >sacrifice. They still did sacrifices all the tiem in Jesus’s days. >Yet if he respected that custom, he preched about learnbign to cut it out. >To learn to have compassion and not scarifice, adding "If only we coudl >understand that". >>>>>>Death could not hold Him down. He was resurrected and went to be with >>>>>>God. He is coming back to put an end to sin, Satan and all evil. >Erm. Above ths last paragraph, earlier in his post, did that poster nt say it >had already been done? Sounds like JW to me. Accent on sin, on the devil, >on the restored world and so on still to come. > The >>>>>>earth will be restored…. We will all give an account of our lives >>>>>>and be judged by Him. There will be no secrets hidden. >"As you judge, so shall you be judged". >It then is not just God judging in that sentence;-) >The secrets hidden, well, that must be taken from "nothign is unknown to >God" and "Nothign is in the darkness save what will coem to light" >paraphrasing as I read it mostly in French if I did the incursions in the >english veriions quite a few times too. But it does not say that it will >be revealed to everyoen else. That woudl be humiliation and not love. >"If your neighbor in the night knocks on your door to ask a bread for >unecxpected visitors, will you not give him some? Even more so if it was >your child asking for bread. Then how coudl God give his children less". >If a parent can give his child forgiveness then how much more God, tehn. >>>>>>The Bible has stood the test of time. Thousands of years. Lives >>>>>>changed. Jesus called it the Word of God. >Lives changed all right, In the name of the letter milliosn were killed >through the centuries, s;ayed in the supposed name of enlighment and God;s >word. Yet CHRIST gave the commandments, not as in the Old testament (an >eye for an eye and so on), but 5 or 6 of them depending on the apostle >that speaks and lists them. Among any list that Christ si said to have >given is "Do not kill". >Livs were derstroyed by those who thought they coudl kill in the name of >love cause they were "christians" and coudl do it in the name of God’s >word. Yet the word is DO NOT KILL. It was so way back, and remained so. >Yes, it was carried through two milleniae. But it was not heard too much. >How many died today killed in the world? Wars, and murders and all that? >The spirit of the word is not seen much at all. The letter, oh, the letter…. >That is too often seen and used to justify even lkilling anbd calling it >"passing the test of time". Lacks humility somewhat, that. > > > And this is what he also says > >>>I will repeat myself: When you want to find out about God. Seek Him. >>>Not from someone who is going to give you their idea of what they >>>think He is. >Sounds liek a preacher to dsay this after giving his idea and interpretation:) >They may be right, or they may not. It is better to seek >>>Him direct. Seek Him sincerely. He is contactable. That is what >>>Christianity is all about. It’s not about religion. It is about a >>>relationship with God. >That is right. Sounds right to me. >> You can’t reason with him at all — I don’t propose anything new, >> I say – use common sense and simple logic, which he rejects straightaway. >Not a chirstian attitude that. Such close-mindedness. >See, that happens whn people think THEUIR belief is THE Truth rather than >see it is THEIR turth or THEIR belief. >Why woudl you want to try and do likie him, i.e. try and pu8sh your belief >in other poeple;s throat? Why not expose your belief and what you rest it >on and simply present it as it is? YOUR beliegf. Or just present the >various things that sustain the possibility of ETs having been here >before, whatever, and donlt add the "you must/they must believ me!" or "I >must convince christians!" or whatever other kind of faith/believers. >Unpleasant to be shoved a belioef down one;s throat, innit? >Why try and compete in that? >> I say ‘the bible is not a camera’ – it does not record what is written. >> How can it? Unless you believe everyone involved with writing, editing >> and translating the bible, was guided by the ‘holy spirit’ ALL the time. >The thing is to see the words and letters, sure, but to get the spirit of it. >That not many get to… >> That is the only way it can be 100% accurate and infallible – and it simply >> isn’t… >To claim it is would be silly. It is incomplete, for one thing. >But see, to atack beliefs with that reasonign is not help;poing yours, as >yours is also not something written by people that are above mistakes. We >all are human for one thing. > > > I’m not writing anything new in my book, >not at all. > I will merely wish to popularise what I put forward in it. >> What anyone can do – apply common sense and ordinary every day
… read more »
Response:
Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>> Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has >>> no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining >>> what ‘reality’ is or is about. >>> To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like > saying, >>> there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what >>> they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of >>> current theories, and what science says… >>> They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. >>> People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell >>> it like it is. >>Since exactly, no one alive has witnessed moments of the life of Christ, >>the figure around which christinaity was established, it follows that no >>one alive saw the event. Not those who believe it happened, not those who >>do not believe it where then by your own definition, telling christians >>they have not seen it and can not say the truth would be one: telling the >>emperor he has no clothes, to take your own image; 2. NOT b the truth >>either because your own defnition of truth is telling an event liek it >>happened, where you have not seen the event either and then can not say it >>as it happened. >>Furhter, if one holds this definition of triuth, their declaring untrue >>some event they nor the christians ever witnessed and opposing it as >>"true" by affitrmign that truth is Extra Terrestrials landing here and >>doing this and that, could not be true, as per your own definition, unless >>one woudl have seen ETs and say what they saw like it was, wihtout >>interpreting the facts into a system of Beliefs then. >>In that, by your own definition of truth above, you coudl not be seeking >>the truth, as your belief is based on relatings from others that wrote >>books on it and interpreted the intention and gave a function of messenger >>to ETs, just like those who read the New Testament read the interpretation >>of those who claim they saw and witnessed what they wrote about. Save that >>in your case, it would be the interpretation fo the interpretation of >>those who wrote the books you read on ETs, which comes back to the same >>thing as what christians do: their understanding and interpretation of the >>books written by those who saw moments of Christ life and recorded them and >>interpreted them as they understood them. >>That makes it so that by your own concept of truth or nothion of truth >>seeking above, your work would not be seeking the truth any more or less >>than the christians you seem so fascinated about. I.e. do you have your >>own truth to even say or is your truth meanign to demystify christinaity >>without havign a big global Truth per se? >>Perhaps you shoudl then concentrate your efforts on speaking the truth of >>whatevent you have witnessed about ETs landing and so on, rather than get >>distratced and lose focus and go on a wothchunt about christians for their >>not havign seen Christ and therfore not knowign the truth, where as long >>as you have not seen ETs landing yourself, *by that same way of thinking >>you use about christianity, you’d not know the truth about ET’s >>anymore than cristians about Christ either. >>I coudl see how one woudl maybe see christinanity woudl need demystigied >>in that, but now how their using the exact same thinking procerss as they >>use to demystify christianity woudl not itself be a myth, and in that, how >>it coudl be "THE" Truth. >>If you say it is an explanation of reality, then call it that, why not? >>Truth is, many explanatiosn of reality have been super farfetched and off >>target. Zeus and Jupiter did not make thunder. The earth is not flat. >>There is not an end of the world where poeple fall off. he sun does not >>revolve around us, etc, etc, etc. >>> People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just >>> lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? >>> What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense. >>Three things here. First, *chrust*ianity contains the word Christ and means >>the belief in his teaching,s where he was not there in the days of the Old >>Testament, only for some while during what makes the New Testament. The >>apostles Acts is part of the New Testament and yet occured after CXhrist >>died. Christinaity then, is not the ntire Bible in that. >>Second, that means that when Christ arrived, there was ca context and >>systmes of beliefs he faced, systems of beliefs that people had already, >>from religions that alrerady were in place, and robbed people of any life >>quality at all, not t mention of spirituality itself. His words were then >>in that generation and in that context of facing established beliefs and >>using at times images from the old beliefs and the book they were then >>based on: the old testament. "Before Eli was, I was" is a fast example of >>it. Eli was in the old testament and was then aprt of an old belief by >>which it said that Eli woudl have to come back before teh messiah, i.e. >>christ to christians then, would come back. His words were in teh context >>of answerign a person exactly tellign him that he coudl not be the >>messiah, cause Eli had not come back. He also yet was reported to ahve >>said :"Eli *was* back and you did to him as you chose*". They then >>itnerpreted that Eli had to be reincarnated as Johgn the Baptist, sicne >>some religions of the time, namely the one that Matthew the apostle was in >>and already shaped and influebced by and interpretign Christ’s words >>with, then, believed in reincarnation. >>And third: do you really believe that a spaceship will come to pick you >>and take you to Saturn?;-) Silly question it is and you probably think I >>am lending you beliefs and intentiosn you do not have. Well, the same, >>lendign christians intentiosn that suit your theories about ETs is, to use >>your words, just as nonsensical and makes non-sense. >>We masybe can inagine why we’d not see sos waiting, cause souls are saidf >>to be invisible, say, ort whatever else. But to think that billions of >>people were taken by spaceships when they died and no oen saw it happen >>ever, now that woudl be harder to gobble. >>Stupid reasoning, I know, yet it is not more brilliant Harvey when used by >>you….Sorry to say. >>One can not say he will tell Truth of All Things and use doubl standards >>about any system of belief that is not his, showing its flaws, and then >>use the exact same systenm he described as flawed to describe his own >>system of belief and call it the truth right after he called it a flase >>thing or an untruth. >>Got to be consequent, the resonsings be inherently consequent but also >>""parallely so"" with regards to other systems of beliefs. One can not >>declare phony one reasoning and then use the same and declare it not just >>true, but *THE* Truth, capital T. >>If one wants to decrivbe their understanding of one explanation fo >>relaity, then why not call it as it is, and not make it a religious belief >>in the unexplained? >>Tell us about the events you witnessed about ETs landing and so on, and >>let us chose if we want to belive in that cause it makes sense or offers a >>better system of Spiritual Beliefs. >>Do you see what I mean? >>Perhaps you shoudl focus on your topic, which is explaning a theory about >>hwo earth came to be or how it wa populated or whatever it is to you, and >>not get lost in digressiosn and attacks about this or that spiritual >>beleif. Cause again, and englobing truth woudl not deny reality, and >>religions, that we adhere to one of them or not, ARE part of daily life >>and REALITY on earth. Excluding them as unrealities, if to you so means >>truth or untruth, woudl infirm your own belief as englobing and thus as >>*THE* one truth englibing all truths, cause it woudl reject all >>systems of beliefs. >>Spirituality is NOT an ""event"", if it yet happenes. I.e. we do not go "I >>just saw pirituality at the corner cafe!!". Christianity is a happening >>and an event in that. It had a begining and an unfolding and affected >>hitory and in that christinaity IS a reality all right. That the belief is >>right or wrong, it still is part of Earth’s reality. Denyign its reality >>coudl then not be called The Turth. >> Just liek denying the reality of the Muslim religion or of Zen for that >>mnatter coudl not lead to THE one truth about reality on earth, and >>even less about Reality. >>So in short, to use the same simplistic reasinings and ridicule as you >>generously appply to all other beliefs than yours, where a person of truth >>woudl want to apply the same measure to their own belief too, then, it >>shoudl be returned to you that this: >>SDo you really believe that little men from space will coem and get you >>when you die and reincarnate you into a body and create a life scenario >>they will oversee the creation of so as to make you pay for the wrogn you >>did and live ion the shoes of the oens you did wrogn to? >>I am not sayign that si what ytou believe in, donlt read me wrong, I am >>simply tryign to show you that you use two weights and two measures and >>that in that your own belief is biased and interpretation, and not a >>description of an event you;ld have witnessed any more than christians, >>and that if simplifying to nonsense is fien to do with beliefs, then the >>same shoudl be done by you about your own **if you want to talk about >>truth*. Truth does not have two wights and two measures nor two standards >>by which to be measure. Even less *THE* Truth, capital T. >> > > Then there is >>the question of what happens at birth? Where do these >>> souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated >>> by a spirit within. Call it
… read more »
Response:
In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has >> no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining >> what ‘reality’ is or is about. >> To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like saying, >> there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what >> they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of >> current theories, and what science says… >> They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. >> People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell >> it like it is. >Since exactly, no one alive has witnessed moments of the life of Christ, >the figure around which christinaity was established, it follows that no >one alive saw the event. Not those who believe it happened, not those who >do not believe it where then by your own definition, telling christians >they have not seen it and can not say the truth would be one: telling the >emperor he has no clothes, to take your own image; 2. NOT b the truth >either because your own defnition of truth is telling an event liek it >happened, where you have not seen the event either and then can not say it >as it happened. >Furhter, if one holds this definition of triuth, their declaring untrue >some event they nor the christians ever witnessed and opposing it as >"true" by affitrmign that truth is Extra Terrestrials landing here and >doing this and that, could not be true, as per your own definition, unless >one woudl have seen ETs and say what they saw like it was, wihtout >interpreting the facts into a system of Beliefs then. >In that, by your own definition of truth above, you coudl not be seeking >the truth, as your belief is based on relatings from others that wrote >books on it and interpreted the intention and gave a function of messenger >to ETs, just like those who read the New Testament read the interpretation >of those who claim they saw and witnessed what they wrote about. Save that >in your case, it would be the interpretation fo the interpretation of >those who wrote the books you read on ETs, which comes back to the same >thing as what christians do: their understanding and interpretation of the >books written by those who saw moments of Christ life and recorded them and >interpreted them as they understood them. >That makes it so that by your own concept of truth or nothion of truth >seeking above, your work would not be seeking the truth any more or less >than the christians you seem so fascinated about. I.e. do you have your >own truth to even say or is your truth meanign to demystify christinaity >without havign a big global Truth per se? >Perhaps you shoudl then concentrate your efforts on speaking the truth of >whatevent you have witnessed about ETs landing and so on, rather than get >distratced and lose focus and go on a wothchunt about christians for their >not havign seen Christ and therfore not knowign the truth, where as long >as you have not seen ETs landing yourself, *by that same way of thinking >you use about christianity, you’d not know the truth about ET’s >anymore than cristians about Christ either. >I coudl see how one woudl maybe see christinanity woudl need demystigied >in that, but now how their using the exact same thinking procerss as they >use to demystify christianity woudl not itself be a myth, and in that, how >it coudl be "THE" Truth. >If you say it is an explanation of reality, then call it that, why not? >Truth is, many explanatiosn of reality have been super farfetched and off >target. Zeus and Jupiter did not make thunder. The earth is not flat. >There is not an end of the world where poeple fall off. he sun does not >revolve around us, etc, etc, etc. >> People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just >> lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? >> What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense. >Three things here. First, *chrust*ianity contains the word Christ and means >the belief in his teaching,s where he was not there in the days of the Old >Testament, only for some while during what makes the New Testament. The >apostles Acts is part of the New Testament and yet occured after CXhrist >died. Christinaity then, is not the ntire Bible in that. >Second, that means that when Christ arrived, there was ca context and >systmes of beliefs he faced, systems of beliefs that people had already, >from religions that alrerady were in place, and robbed people of any life >quality at all, not t mention of spirituality itself. His words were then >in that generation and in that context of facing established beliefs and >using at times images from the old beliefs and the book they were then >based on: the old testament. "Before Eli was, I was" is a fast example of >it. Eli was in the old testament and was then aprt of an old belief by >which it said that Eli woudl have to come back before teh messiah, i.e. >christ to christians then, would come back. His words were in teh context >of answerign a person exactly tellign him that he coudl not be the >messiah, cause Eli had not come back. He also yet was reported to ahve >said :"Eli *was* back and you did to him as you chose*". They then >itnerpreted that Eli had to be reincarnated as Johgn the Baptist, sicne >some religions of the time, namely the one that Matthew the apostle was in >and already shaped and influebced by and interpretign Christ’s words >with, then, believed in reincarnation. >And third: do you really believe that a spaceship will come to pick you >and take you to Saturn?;-) Silly question it is and you probably think I >am lending you beliefs and intentiosn you do not have. Well, the same, >lendign christians intentiosn that suit your theories about ETs is, to use >your words, just as nonsensical and makes non-sense. >We masybe can inagine why we’d not see sos waiting, cause souls are saidf >to be invisible, say, ort whatever else. But to think that billions of >people were taken by spaceships when they died and no oen saw it happen >ever, now that woudl be harder to gobble. >Stupid reasoning, I know, yet it is not more brilliant Harvey when used by >you….Sorry to say. >One can not say he will tell Truth of All Things and use doubl standards >about any system of belief that is not his, showing its flaws, and then >use the exact same systenm he described as flawed to describe his own >system of belief and call it the truth right after he called it a flase >thing or an untruth. >Got to be consequent, the resonsings be inherently consequent but also >""parallely so"" with regards to other systems of beliefs. One can not >declare phony one reasoning and then use the same and declare it not just >true, but *THE* Truth, capital T. >If one wants to decrivbe their understanding of one explanation fo >relaity, then why not call it as it is, and not make it a religious belief >in the unexplained? >Tell us about the events you witnessed about ETs landing and so on, and >let us chose if we want to belive in that cause it makes sense or offers a >better system of Spiritual Beliefs. >Do you see what I mean? >Perhaps you shoudl focus on your topic, which is explaning a theory about >hwo earth came to be or how it wa populated or whatever it is to you, and >not get lost in digressiosn and attacks about this or that spiritual >beleif. Cause again, and englobing truth woudl not deny reality, and >religions, that we adhere to one of them or not, ARE part of daily life >and REALITY on earth. Excluding them as unrealities, if to you so means >truth or untruth, woudl infirm your own belief as englobing and thus as >*THE* one truth englibing all truths, cause it woudl reject all >systems of beliefs. >Spirituality is NOT an ""event"", if it yet happenes. I.e. we do not go "I >just saw pirituality at the corner cafe!!". Christianity is a happening >and an event in that. It had a begining and an unfolding and affected >hitory and in that christinaity IS a reality all right. That the belief is >right or wrong, it still is part of Earth’s reality. Denyign its reality >coudl then not be called The Turth. > Just liek denying the reality of the Muslim religion or of Zen for that >mnatter coudl not lead to THE one truth about reality on earth, and >even less about Reality. >So in short, to use the same simplistic reasinings and ridicule as you >generously appply to all other beliefs than yours, where a person of truth >woudl want to apply the same measure to their own belief too, then, it >shoudl be returned to you that this: >SDo you really believe that little men from space will coem and get you >when you die and reincarnate you into a body and create a life scenario >they will oversee the creation of so as to make you pay for the wrogn you >did and live ion the shoes of the oens you did wrogn to? >I am not sayign that si what ytou believe in, donlt read me wrong, I am >simply tryign to show you that you use two weights and two measures and >that in that your own belief is biased and interpretation, and not a >description of an event you;ld have witnessed any more than christians, >and that if simplifying to nonsense is fien to do with beliefs, then the >same shoudl be done by you about your own **if you want to talk about >truth*. Truth does not have two wights and two measures nor two standards >by which to be measure. Even less *THE* Truth, capital T. > > > Then there is >the question of what happens at birth? Where do these >> souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated >> by a spirit within. Call it personality/consciousness/whatever – or even >> spirit/soul. >Are you talking ETs here? >Are you tlaking your topic or just going against an established oen with >nothign better to offer as a spiritual system of Belief? >Why not atlk about
… read more »
Response:
> Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has > no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining > what ‘reality’ is or is about. > To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like saying, > there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what > they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of > current theories, and what science says… > They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. > People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell > it like it is.
Since exactly, no one alive has witnessed moments of the life of Christ, the figure around which christinaity was established, it follows that no one alive saw the event. Not those who believe it happened, not those who do not believe it where then by your own definition, telling christians they have not seen it and can not say the truth would be one: telling the emperor he has no clothes, to take your own image; 2. NOT b the truth either because your own defnition of truth is telling an event liek it happened, where you have not seen the event either and then can not say it as it happened. Furhter, if one holds this definition of triuth, their declaring untrue some event they nor the christians ever witnessed and opposing it as "true" by affitrmign that truth is Extra Terrestrials landing here and doing this and that, could not be true, as per your own definition, unless one woudl have seen ETs and say what they saw like it was, wihtout interpreting the facts into a system of Beliefs then. In that, by your own definition of truth above, you coudl not be seeking the truth, as your belief is based on relatings from others that wrote books on it and interpreted the intention and gave a function of messenger to ETs, just like those who read the New Testament read the interpretation of those who claim they saw and witnessed what they wrote about. Save that in your case, it would be the interpretation fo the interpretation of those who wrote the books you read on ETs, which comes back to the same thing as what christians do: their understanding and interpretation of the books written by those who saw moments of Christ life and recorded them and interpreted them as they understood them. That makes it so that by your own concept of truth or nothion of truth seeking above, your work would not be seeking the truth any more or less than the christians you seem so fascinated about. I.e. do you have your own truth to even say or is your truth meanign to demystify christinaity without havign a big global Truth per se? Perhaps you shoudl then concentrate your efforts on speaking the truth of whatevent you have witnessed about ETs landing and so on, rather than get distratced and lose focus and go on a wothchunt about christians for their not havign seen Christ and therfore not knowign the truth, where as long as you have not seen ETs landing yourself, *by that same way of thinking you use about christianity, you’d not know the truth about ET’s anymore than cristians about Christ either. I coudl see how one woudl maybe see christinanity woudl need demystigied in that, but now how their using the exact same thinking procerss as they use to demystify christianity woudl not itself be a myth, and in that, how it coudl be "THE" Truth. If you say it is an explanation of reality, then call it that, why not? Truth is, many explanatiosn of reality have been super farfetched and off target. Zeus and Jupiter did not make thunder. The earth is not flat. There is not an end of the world where poeple fall off. he sun does not revolve around us, etc, etc, etc. > People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just > lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? > What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense.
Three things here. First, *chrust*ianity contains the word Christ and means the belief in his teaching,s where he was not there in the days of the Old Testament, only for some while during what makes the New Testament. The apostles Acts is part of the New Testament and yet occured after CXhrist died. Christinaity then, is not the ntire Bible in that. Second, that means that when Christ arrived, there was ca context and systmes of beliefs he faced, systems of beliefs that people had already, from religions that alrerady were in place, and robbed people of any life quality at all, not t mention of spirituality itself. His words were then in that generation and in that context of facing established beliefs and using at times images from the old beliefs and the book they were then based on: the old testament. "Before Eli was, I was" is a fast example of it. Eli was in the old testament and was then aprt of an old belief by which it said that Eli woudl have to come back before teh messiah, i.e. christ to christians then, would come back. His words were in teh context of answerign a person exactly tellign him that he coudl not be the messiah, cause Eli had not come back. He also yet was reported to ahve said :"Eli *was* back and you did to him as you chose*". They then itnerpreted that Eli had to be reincarnated as Johgn the Baptist, sicne some religions of the time, namely the one that Matthew the apostle was in and already shaped and influebced by and interpretign Christ’s words with, then, believed in reincarnation. And third: do you really believe that a spaceship will come to pick you and take you to Saturn?;-) Silly question it is and you probably think I am lending you beliefs and intentiosn you do not have. Well, the same, lendign christians intentiosn that suit your theories about ETs is, to use your words, just as nonsensical and makes non-sense. We masybe can inagine why we’d not see sos waiting, cause souls are saidf to be invisible, say, ort whatever else. But to think that billions of people were taken by spaceships when they died and no oen saw it happen ever, now that woudl be harder to gobble. Stupid reasoning, I know, yet it is not more brilliant Harvey when used by you….Sorry to say. One can not say he will tell Truth of All Things and use doubl standards about any system of belief that is not his, showing its flaws, and then use the exact same systenm he described as flawed to describe his own system of belief and call it the truth right after he called it a flase thing or an untruth. Got to be consequent, the resonsings be inherently consequent but also ""parallely so"" with regards to other systems of beliefs. One can not declare phony one reasoning and then use the same and declare it not just true, but *THE* Truth, capital T. If one wants to decrivbe their understanding of one explanation fo relaity, then why not call it as it is, and not make it a religious belief in the unexplained? Tell us about the events you witnessed about ETs landing and so on, and let us chose if we want to belive in that cause it makes sense or offers a better system of Spiritual Beliefs. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps you shoudl focus on your topic, which is explaning a theory about hwo earth came to be or how it wa populated or whatever it is to you, and not get lost in digressiosn and attacks about this or that spiritual beleif. Cause again, and englobing truth woudl not deny reality, and religions, that we adhere to one of them or not, ARE part of daily life and REALITY on earth. Excluding them as unrealities, if to you so means truth or untruth, woudl infirm your own belief as englobing and thus as *THE* one truth englibing all truths, cause it woudl reject all systems of beliefs. Spirituality is NOT an ""event"", if it yet happenes. I.e. we do not go "I just saw pirituality at the corner cafe!!". Christianity is a happening and an event in that. It had a begining and an unfolding and affected hitory and in that christinaity IS a reality all right. That the belief is right or wrong, it still is part of Earth’s reality. Denyign its reality coudl then not be called The Turth. Just liek denying the reality of the Muslim religion or of Zen for that mnatter coudl not lead to THE one truth about reality on earth, and even less about Reality. So in short, to use the same simplistic reasinings and ridicule as you generously appply to all other beliefs than yours, where a person of truth woudl want to apply the same measure to their own belief too, then, it shoudl be returned to you that this: SDo you really believe that little men from space will coem and get you when you die and reincarnate you into a body and create a life scenario they will oversee the creation of so as to make you pay for the wrogn you did and live ion the shoes of the oens you did wrogn to? I am not sayign that si what ytou believe in, donlt read me wrong, I am simply tryign to show you that you use two weights and two measures and that in that your own belief is biased and interpretation, and not a description of an event you;ld have witnessed any more than christians, and that if simplifying to nonsense is fien to do with beliefs, then the same shoudl be done by you about your own **if you want to talk about truth*. Truth does not have two wights and two measures nor two standards by which to be measure. Even less *THE* Truth, capital T. > > Then there is the question of what happens at birth? Where do these > souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated > by a spirit within. Call it personality/consciousness/whatever – or even > spirit/soul.
Are you talking ETs here? Are you tlaking your topic or just going against an established oen with nothign better to offer as a spiritual system of Belief? Why not atlk about YOUR belief? Wh thsi fascination in a christian belief YOU do nto believe about? If your book is about YOUR belief, then so be it, sure. But you seem to be lost in the opposition of the beliefs of others…And in that going off your own topic. Sure, I … read more »
Response:
In article <chv77d$nr…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says… >>>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>>:) >>>-Chloe >>>– >> Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. >> Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… >Hehehehe:) >Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) >> Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV >> about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while >> ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, >> but somehow feels safe? there… >The terminal being what sort of terminal? >Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who >were >abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. >I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, >or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive >the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the >course of their life from there. > > I got the weirdst ideas at times, >some will make for an interesting >> film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional >> storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be >> better stories than that… and I have some… >I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in >my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more >time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. >If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign >their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be >fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the >end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money >if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) >C >> > Harvey >
The terminal – meaning airport. The film is inspired by the real life story of a man trapped at a French airport – Paris? The real story and the movie are completely different. Hollywood has Tom Hanks meeting a helpful air stewardess – no such luck in real life, the real man is ‘alone’ without anyone special in his life. I’m not inspired to become a fictional writer – I deal with ideas, rather than characters and plot. I saw a TV special about Janet Frame’s life – a noted NZ writer. She died earlier this year, and grew up in this area. I haven’t read any of her books – she was nominated for the nobel prize in literature, but didn’t win. I think the real truth about things/life/etc is far more fantasical than anything in fiction or fantasy – and few people believe it – the truth. So, what I would write about – is a Harry Potter for adults. No, I haven’t read anything of Harry Potter. Harvey
Response:
In article <ci0pl6$mi…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <chv77d$nr…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says… >>>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>>> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>>> says… >>>>>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>>>>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>>>>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>>>>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>>>>:) >>>>>-Chloe >>>>>– >>>> Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. >>>> Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… >>>Hehehehe:) >>>Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) >>>> Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV >>>> about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while >>>> ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, >>>> but somehow feels safe? there… >>>The terminal being what sort of terminal? >>>Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who >>>were >>>abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. >>>I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, >>>or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive >>>the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the >>>course of their life from there. >>> > I got the weirdst ideas at times, >>>some will make for an interesting >>>> film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional >>>> storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be >>>> better stories than that… and I have some… >>>I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in >>>my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more >>>time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. >>>If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign >>>their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be >>>fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the >>>end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money >>>if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) >>>C >>>> > Harvey > >> The terminal – meaning airport. >> The film is inspired by the real life story of a man trapped at >> a French airport – Paris? The real story and the movie are completely >> different. Hollywood has Tom Hanks meeting a helpful air stewardess – >Ah. Yes, saw a few ads about that one a while back. Forgot about it >completely. >> no such luck in real life, the real man is ‘alone’ without anyone >> special in his life. >…I take t that you eman that the book is about the story of a man in >Real Life (i.e. you not thinking a fictional character has a real life:)) >> I’m not inspired to become a fictional writer – I deal with ideas, >> rather than characters and plot. >Those are ideas too:) >> I saw a TV special about Janet Frame’s life – a noted NZ writer. >> She died earlier this year, and grew up in this area. >> I haven’t read any of her books – she was nominated for the nobel prize in >> literature, but didn’t win. >> I think the real truth about things/life/etc is far more fantasical than >> anything in fiction or fantasy – and few people believe it – the truth. >I always find a bit odd this fascination for The Truth poeple have. >No wonder the X Fioles caught on so much…..Usually people talking about >a quest for THE truth are people that end up suicidal, as what they seem >to be seeking -for the oens I met so far, say- is infinity or infinitude >maybe it woudl be called….In fact what they are looking for is pretty >much the same quest as those who looked for (a) god. The Pure thing, >whrre the pure thing can only be potential and neverrealization, as if >it "becomes" it no longer is perfect or pure….In that, if one coudl even >"know" THE truth, they coudl not speak it without speaking somethign else >than The truth. >Dunno if you see what I mean…. >But anyway. I am a truthful person and that maybe then suffices me. THE >truth is not somethign I seek more thanh good or happiness or this or >that. I donlt seek one thing at the expense of another thing, or so I try >and not do anyway…. >As well…To me, if "The" truth rejects other poeple’s various concepts and >beliefs and so on, it cna not be big enough to be "THE" truth. >Truth alone does not suffice and Truth is not a Prime thing, in that >morals to define what is true or not are presupposed and necessary, where >then other moral things are above truth to evaluate it and see when it is >true or not. >Hard to put in words, but to me, to say "I am looking for The Truth" or "I >hold The Truth" woudl be like my saying I am looking for the second branch >of a pear tree, when I woudl yet not be looking for a epar tree to find >the secodn branch IN….? >What is the ultimate value? The oen that all others are evaluated under? >To some it is truth. To me not all truth is good to say. Eg: telling a >maniac the real address of the eprson he woudl tell me he wants to kill >woudl not be a good truth to say. So if trith can be a wrogn thing, >soethign else has to be above Truth to make it so we can know and judge >when it is proper and good to say "the" truth and when it is not. >Because of that Truth is not for me the Ultimate or Prime Value. >In fact I do not think that any value can be above all others. >But I know this. If we see that saying the truth lovingly os always good, >i.e. saying the truth for our own well being and preservign that of others >too, then love is "overseing" truth. >In that and in other values, I think that Love is my top value of the >pyramid. Not love as in romance else when no ranace si there all my other >values would be what, suddenly changed or fluctuating and transforming >each minute back and forth? >And above my top "love" value is "God" in my case, i.e. this potentiality >where all pure concepts are, Truth among, and to which I can refer to when >I need to keep my concepts and values in check when love is at stake or at >rosk, else all would become chaos, if my top value was affected….Havign >this pure potential "container" of the pure concepts and values above it >all also makes it so that I can not take my own self too seriously and can >not as easily fall into conceitedness and arrogance or thinkign that my >own pyramid of values woudl be THE truth to impose on others. >It is mine and anothers is just as good for them as mine is for me, or >like me they will keep working at it until itis good enough for them, of >they care about that. If they donlt that si fine as that si their own self >and choice too…. >But for me, Trith is not the highest concept or value of the pyramid, as >not all truths are good to say, if mind you I find few exceptions, i.e. >very few exceptions are when the trith is not good to be said in my view. >I.e. that very rarely is it that in a loving way, one woudl have to not >say the truth. I can think of a few instances: someoen askign em if they >will have a suprise party. I am NOT gonna tell them and ruin it! The >maniac asking me some gal’s addie. I will NOT tell him/her! But that >suffices for me to see that soemthign is higher in my pyramid of values >than truth in that it oversees when sayign the truth is good or not: loving or >not. Love for me is what makes me know when it woudl not be good nor right >to tell some serial killer the truth about someoen else’s addrss when I >know they are after them to kill them, nah!:) >So that to me makes truth still a very important thing, but doe snot make >me think of The Turth as my "god" or as the top of my value pyuramid. Love >for my neighbor is above that one in the pyramid, simply. Yet that one >makes me think it sure is fine if my neighybor has whatever top value to >their pyramid of values or belief that they chose. Sure is all fine by me, >cause I love that neighbor!:). Some I love from a greater distance, >maybe;-) but I love them anyway!:) I want them happy…with or without >me;-), and I want myself happy with or without them;-):) > > > So, what I would write >about – is a >Harry Potter for adults. > No, I haven’t read anything of Harry Potter. >I have not either if I might soem day:) >You’d be surprised btw how many adults read Harry Potter. >If I know what you eman:) >Chloe >> Harvey
Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining what ‘reality’ is or is about. To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like saying, there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of current theories, and what science says… They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell it like it is. People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense. Then there is the question of what happens at birth? Where do these souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated by a spirit within. Call it personality/consciousness/whatever – or even spirit/soul. And what does the atheist/scientist really … read more »
Response:
Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <chv77d$nr…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>> says… >>>>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>>>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>>>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>>>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>>>:) >>>>-Chloe >>>>– >>> Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. >>> Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… >>Hehehehe:) >>Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) >>> Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV >>> about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while >>> ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, >>> but somehow feels safe? there… >>The terminal being what sort of terminal? >>Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who >>were >>abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. >>I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, >>or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive >>the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the >>course of their life from there. >> > I got the weirdst ideas at times, >>some will make for an interesting >>> film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional >>> storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be >>> better stories than that… and I have some… >>I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in >>my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more >>time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. >>If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign >>their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be >>fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the >>end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money >>if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) >>C >>> > Harvey > > The terminal – meaning airport. > The film is inspired by the real life story of a man trapped at > a French airport – Paris? The real story and the movie are completely > different. Hollywood has Tom Hanks meeting a helpful air stewardess –
Ah. Yes, saw a few ads about that one a while back. Forgot about it completely. > no such luck in real life, the real man is ‘alone’ without anyone > special in his life.
…I take t that you eman that the book is about the story of a man in Real Life (i.e. you not thinking a fictional character has a real life:)) > > I’m not inspired to become a fictional writer – I deal with ideas, > rather than characters and plot.
Those are ideas too:) > I saw a TV special about Janet Frame’s life – a noted NZ writer. > She died earlier this year, and grew up in this area. > I haven’t read any of her books – she was nominated for the nobel prize in > literature, but didn’t win. > I think the real truth about things/life/etc is far more fantasical than > anything in fiction or fantasy – and few people believe it – the truth.
I always find a bit odd this fascination for The Truth poeple have. No wonder the X Fioles caught on so much…..Usually people talking about a quest for THE truth are people that end up suicidal, as what they seem to be seeking -for the oens I met so far, say- is infinity or infinitude maybe it woudl be called….In fact what they are looking for is pretty much the same quest as those who looked for (a) god. The Pure thing, whrre the pure thing can only be potential and neverrealization, as if it "becomes" it no longer is perfect or pure….In that, if one coudl even "know" THE truth, they coudl not speak it without speaking somethign else than The truth. Dunno if you see what I mean…. But anyway. I am a truthful person and that maybe then suffices me. THE truth is not somethign I seek more thanh good or happiness or this or that. I donlt seek one thing at the expense of another thing, or so I try and not do anyway…. As well…To me, if "The" truth rejects other poeple’s various concepts and beliefs and so on, it cna not be big enough to be "THE" truth. Truth alone does not suffice and Truth is not a Prime thing, in that morals to define what is true or not are presupposed and necessary, where then other moral things are above truth to evaluate it and see when it is true or not. Hard to put in words, but to me, to say "I am looking for The Truth" or "I hold The Truth" woudl be like my saying I am looking for the second branch of a pear tree, when I woudl yet not be looking for a epar tree to find the secodn branch IN….? What is the ultimate value? The oen that all others are evaluated under? To some it is truth. To me not all truth is good to say. Eg: telling a maniac the real address of the eprson he woudl tell me he wants to kill woudl not be a good truth to say. So if trith can be a wrogn thing, soethign else has to be above Truth to make it so we can know and judge when it is proper and good to say "the" truth and when it is not. Because of that Truth is not for me the Ultimate or Prime Value. In fact I do not think that any value can be above all others. But I know this. If we see that saying the truth lovingly os always good, i.e. saying the truth for our own well being and preservign that of others too, then love is "overseing" truth. In that and in other values, I think that Love is my top value of the pyramid. Not love as in romance else when no ranace si there all my other values would be what, suddenly changed or fluctuating and transforming each minute back and forth? And above my top "love" value is "God" in my case, i.e. this potentiality where all pure concepts are, Truth among, and to which I can refer to when I need to keep my concepts and values in check when love is at stake or at rosk, else all would become chaos, if my top value was affected….Havign this pure potential "container" of the pure concepts and values above it all also makes it so that I can not take my own self too seriously and can not as easily fall into conceitedness and arrogance or thinkign that my own pyramid of values woudl be THE truth to impose on others. It is mine and anothers is just as good for them as mine is for me, or like me they will keep working at it until itis good enough for them, of they care about that. If they donlt that si fine as that si their own self and choice too…. But for me, Trith is not the highest concept or value of the pyramid, as not all truths are good to say, if mind you I find few exceptions, i.e. very few exceptions are when the trith is not good to be said in my view. I.e. that very rarely is it that in a loving way, one woudl have to not say the truth. I can think of a few instances: someoen askign em if they will have a suprise party. I am NOT gonna tell them and ruin it! The maniac asking me some gal’s addie. I will NOT tell him/her! But that suffices for me to see that soemthign is higher in my pyramid of values than truth in that it oversees when sayign the truth is good or not: loving or not. Love for me is what makes me know when it woudl not be good nor right to tell some serial killer the truth about someoen else’s addrss when I know they are after them to kill them, nah!:) So that to me makes truth still a very important thing, but doe snot make me think of The Turth as my "god" or as the top of my value pyuramid. Love for my neighbor is above that one in the pyramid, simply. Yet that one makes me think it sure is fine if my neighybor has whatever top value to their pyramid of values or belief that they chose. Sure is all fine by me, cause I love that neighbor!:). Some I love from a greater distance, maybe;-) but I love them anyway!:) I want them happy…with or without me;-), and I want myself happy with or without them;-):) > > So, what I would write about – is a Harry Potter for adults. > No, I haven’t read anything of Harry Potter. I have not either if I might soem day:) You’d be surprised btw how many adults read Harry Potter. If I know what you eman:) Chloe > > Harvey
–
Response:
In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >:) >-Chloe >–
Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, but somehow feels safe? there… I got the weirdst ideas at times, some will make for an interesting film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be better stories than that… and I have some… Harvey
Response:
Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>:) >>-Chloe >>– > Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. > Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar…
Hehehehe:) Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) > Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV > about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while > ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, > but somehow feels safe? there…
The terminal being what sort of terminal? Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who were abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the course of their life from there. > I got the weirdst ideas at times, some will make for an interesting > film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional > storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be > better stories than that… and I have some…
I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) C > > Harvey >
–
Response:
I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) 
-Chloe —
Response:
P.S.: Oh yeah./ And they will throw ever so priginally "which is it, Eleonore, or Chloe???" while they of course will have "JohnDoe" for a moniker and sign somethign liek Peter-Paul;-) Just having strong premonitions tonight;-) Hehehe. Oh yeah. And the last sip of beer that werte left from some other day, to test that malt hypo(hyper?)thesis Sklenge inspired. C Eleonore Beaudoin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes: > I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of > my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak > to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) > Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) > > -Chloe > —
–
Response:
— The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous. – http://www.greywyvern.com/ringmaker – Orca Ringmaker: Host a web ring from your website! 
I found this to be absolutely fascinating. Thanks for posting it.