Buddhist Singhalese are bloody Singhalese.

Question:

I don’t know or care who the Tamil or Sinhalese are, and I imagine no one else does either. I just wish they would all kill each other so we wouldn’t have to be bothered with you’re off-topic posts on the subject anymore. Matt

Response:

I don’t know or care who the Tamil or Sinhalese are, and I imagine no one else does either. I just wish they would all kill each other

You should consider going to work for the Bush administration. That way you could just go in and kill them yourself and hasten the process.  Invent any excuse, like they have weapons of mass destruction, call them evil doers, axis of evil, etc.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know or care who the Tamil or Sinhalese are, and I imagine no one else does either. I just wish they would all kill each other You should consider going to work for the Bush administration. That way you could just go in and kill them yourself and hasten the process.  Invent any excuse, like they have weapons of mass destruction, call them evil doers, axis of evil, etc.

…or democrats. — jer  email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Response:

US and its allies back LTTE. Do you know that?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know or care who the Tamil or Sinhalese are, and I imagine no one else does either. I just wish they would all kill each other You should consider going to work for the Bush administration. That way you could just go in and kill them yourself and hasten the process.  Invent any excuse, like they have weapons of mass destruction, call them evil doers, axis of evil, etc.

Response:

I am not trying to tell what ever has happened is a right. Just as Tamil people there had being a huge number of deaths among Sinhalese.

I had a conviction of not trusting bloody Singhalese. These are blood thirsty animals. These monkeys are killing in the name of Buddha and claim innocent and hide under yellow robe. This article is illustrating how these educated monkeys work. I personally have experience like this. These monkeys act like innocent and recite in pali Buddha’s teaching and have killer insting like lion. My be it is their forefather’s DNA!!! – KS… http://www.sangam.org/articles/view2/?uid=591 What is the Relationship of Rama and Sita? – The Question the Sinhala Nation Asks at Dawn by D. Sivaram, Virakesari, October 10, 2004 translated by M. Thiru In response to my article last week Chandranathan has written his view. "The Sinhalese people are kept in an illusion by their leaders and opinionmakers.  Therefore, we should make a continuous effort to convince at least a few of the Sinhalese to understand our views/problems."  He sent this e-mail via the Tamilnatham website which re-posted my article from Virakesari. I am not opposing his views.  There should be no second thought about taking our reasonable views to the Sinhalese people on a regular basis.  However, my genuine concern is that we should not fall into the illusion that such acts from us will result in receiving our rights from the Sri Lankan rulers. We have been experiencing massive destruction in the last 50 years because of the acts of the Sinhala supremacists.  Yet how much effort we have put into scientifically analysing and comprehending such destruction?  Except for a few research papers in the Sari Nihar journal, I have not seen any other effort made in our Tamil intellectual circles to analyse and comprehend Sinhala Buddhist supremacy, its history, its views and its related social and psychological dimensions.  (If you know any such work, please let me know.) Recently I went to a conference that was attended by a number of professors, writers, journalists and opinionmakers from the South.   At that conference the organisers asked me to explain the political aspirations of the Tamil people.  The Tamil people and their leaders, who have been fluent in English and in Sinhalese, along with reporters, and intellectuals, all have been talking and writing what our political grievances and demands are for the last 56 years. Not only that, the Tamils have been talking with, or putting forward their demands and fighting against, the various governments by peaceful means for 28 years ( 1948 – 1976) and using armed struggle for 28 years ( 1976 – 2004).  It is a known fact that bombs went off among the Sinhalese because none of the Tamils’ political demands were met.  Even an intellectually retarded person will definitely ask questions why bombs are going off around him and why an international airport is attacked and badly damaged. But , even after all this, the Sinhalese are still asking what are the political aspirations of the Tamils and what are your demands?  Such a situation still prevails in the Sinhala nation.  "For over half a century, the Tamil people have been explaining their political aspirations and demands in and out of Parliament and in the international arena, until their jaws cannot move.  Even after all this, you are still asking me what are the Tamils’ aspirations and demands?  It is a sin.  I cannot speak about this," I told them. The sweetest matter at the conference was that the majority of the people who attended really did not know what the political demands of the Tamils are.  After all the events in the last 56 years, if they cannot comprehend what our demands are, I do not know how they are going to understand now. With regard to our political demands, the question the Sinhala nation asks is similar to someone asking in the morning, "What is Rama’s relationship with Seetha?"  after listening to the whole Ramayana epic through the night. Those who advocate that we must make the Sinhalese people understand our political demands must analyse one issue.  One has to think a little and ask, "Why is the Sinhala Nation not understanding us, even after 56 years of many talks and fights?"  "How can we now convert those who have refused to understand us, and who have not cared to understand us for over a half a century?" In this regard, we have to look at one more important point.  From the beginning of the 20th Century, the Sinhalese politicians and the opinionmakers who, at one time, understood the Tamil grievances and their reasonable political demands, have changed for the worse over time and have taken complete U-turns on the Tamil issue. Every one of you knows that, after returning from his education in England, President Chandrika’s father, SWRD Bandaranayake, advocated that Sri Lanka must be converted to a federal system with three federal regions : Kandyan region, Lower Country or Coastal region, Tamil homeland (region). What did he do after that ? Likewise, the Communist Party of Sri Lanka in its 1944 National Conference passed a resolution emphasizing that the Tamils should be granted self-rule. The same Communist Party, together with the SLFP, declared in 1972 that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist nation. What did one of the veteran leftist leaders and a pillar of the LSSP, Colvin R de Silva, who prophesied " One language, two nations and two languages, one nation" on the implementation of Sinhala Only act in 1956, actually do?? He was the prime mover in rewriting the Sri Lankan constitution to make Sri Lanka a unitary Sinhala Buddhist state in 1972. The above are old stories that you all know.  Let us take the period in which our struggle for our rights became an armed struggle.  From the late 1970s on, the JVP emphasised that the Tamil rights for self-determination must be approved. On this basis, many Tamil youths from Batticaloa and Jaffna joined the JVP and served the JVP.  What happened after that? In 1986, Rohana Wijeyaweera, the leader of the JVP, in his long speech to the central committee of JVP, established that the Tamil liberation struggle is an imperialistic conspiracy and categorically said that it must be crushed.  His speech was compiled as a book later. To date that  book is the political bible of the JVP. Around 1973, some of the educated left wing non-JVP Sinhalese youths formed an organisation called the "Stalinist Education Circle."  This organisation gave importance to the Tamil liberation organisations, writing and speaking about them.  This organisation also established some connections with some of the armed Tamil liberation organisations.  (Pe. Muthulingam who writes for the weekend edition of Virakesari was connected to this organisation at that time.) One of the main speakers in the Stalinist Study Circle ( STC), who spoke about the Tamil rights and their right for self determination and who justified the Tamils armed struggle, was Dayan Jayatilleke.  Not only that, he and his comrades formed an armed organisation called "Vikalpa Kandayama." With the leftist ideologies as their base, the STC joined with some of the Eelam liberation organisations, and worked for the self-determination for the Tamils.  I used to meet them in Kandy and Colombo and had discussions with them. (Nobody can underestimate the impact of the analysis and sharp explanations put forward by Dayan Jayatillake on the liberation wars in the third world and on oppression by imperialists worldwide.) Vikalpa Kandayama was banned in 1986 on the accusation that it conspired to topple the Sri Lankan government.  Dayan Jayatilake went into hiding.  The Sri Lankan police and the armed forces were combing the country looking for him.  When he was about to be captured, he contacted me. Even many of the good friends of Dayan Jayatilake refused to help me when he had flee from his hiding place in Colombo.  In the end, we managed to take him from his hiding place to another safe place outside Colombo.  We did this after taking him to see the late Vijaya Kumaratunge, actor and husband of Chandrika Kumaratunge, at midnight.  Vijay Kumaratunge helped me. (In this regard, without even asking his wife Chandrika or anybody else, he helped me immediately.  He was a unique person.) Dayan Jayatilleke later escaped to India.  Then, after getting pardoned by the SL government, he came back to Sri Lanka and became a minister in a Regional Council. What is Jayatillake, a person who moved intimately with the Tamil liberation organisations, doing today?  Today, he writes without cease how the Tiger liberation struggle should be crushed. Once an extreme opponent of American imperialism Jayatillake writes week after week emphasizing that Sri Lanka should seek collaboration with theUS to crush the military power of the Tamils. In those days Jayatillake used to write and say that we must go beyond Sinhala-Tamil differences and fight against American imperialism and fight for the class struggle. Such a nice friend of mine, Dayan Jayatilleke, now writes in the Island newspaper that "We [i.e. the Sinhalese and Sinhala nation] must seek the support of the US to crush the military power of the Tamils."  What happened to him? Is that all? During the period of 1984/86, on behalf of People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam, I was involved in revolutionary work, a broad one in a united Sri Lanka, by forging alliances with Sinhalese Groups in the South. At that time, the most important connection for me in Colombo was Dr. Nalin de Silva of the Mathematics Department at Colombo University.  I used to go to his office to see two of his young students.  They were directly helping me on our political struggle.  Dr. Silva always treated me nicely.  Not a single day was he scared or frightened to socialize with … read more »

Response:

my meditation practice

Question:

Hi everyone, TJ asked me to share with you about the meditation I have been practicing —   it’s virtually eliminated my anxiety.  I can’t guarantee it will work exactly the same way for everyone, but you won’t know until you try. As many of you know, Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) has as one of its major roots a form of meditation called "mindfulness", which comes primarily from Buddhist practice.  CBT has been very successful in treatment of depression and anxiety.  There is a huge variety of meditation instructions available on the web, and if you are interested in exploring meditation, I suggest you start trying as many sources as you can find until you find something that just feels right. This is one good place to start: http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-meditation.htm I would recommend two of their .mp3 downloads for beginners in this type of meditation: Scroll down to the list of files under the name "Malcolm Huxter":  –Cultivating Peace and Joy with the Breath  –Mindfulness of Breath These are similar with somewhat different emphasis.  I’d suggest starting with "Mindfulness of Breath" first.  Just my opinion. A resource that I’ve found invaluable for learning both meditation practice and Buddhist teachings is a podcast available at http://audiodharma.org/talks-guidedmeditation.html   There are other podcasts available, as well. If you want to look for other non-religious and non-mystical Buddhist meditation information online, I would suggest using these words as search terms: Samatha (or Shamatha) meditation Theravada Vipassana Insight Meditation If you’re interested in a more religious or mystical experience, look for: Zen Tibetan Buddhism Mahayana tradition Some tips and info specific to meditation: 1.  Once you find a guided meditation you’re comfortable with, use it once or twice a day, every day, until you feel you know it well enough.  Then continue to practice without the recorded guided meditation. 2.  Your mind will wander; thoughts and distractions will arise.  This is normal.  You don’t want to try to stop your mind altogether — that would be impossible.  Just acknowledge the distraction, and gently bring your attention back to the breath.  Do it every time.  Don’t fight with yourself — keep a sense of humor about it. 3.  Some people respond to this form of meditation right away; others may not feel much different until they’ve had daily practice for weeks, months or years.  Be patient with yourself.  And don’t stop meditating when you start feeling better.  Keep doing it.  Make it a part of your life. 4.  There’s nothing magical about using your breath as the object of mindfulness in meditation.  The reason the breath is a good object is that it’s always with you — it’s portable. 5.  You don’t have to sit in a tortured position to do this.  If you want to sit in the full lotus position, you’re either a masochist or you’re already a Buddha and don’t need this instruction.   The key aspects to the right posture are:  –a straight back — not ramrod straight — just straight enough to keep your chest, belly, and neck unconstricted to enable easy breathing; — balance — your head not tilting in any direction, and your body not leaning, and keep your legs and arms symmetrically placed;  –relaxed muscles — at the start of your meditation, before focusing on the breath, do a body scan — consciously relax any areas of tension. 6.  You might fall asleep.  If you find you do that a lot, change the time of day you meditate to a time when you’re not tired.  Many people prefer to meditate first thing in the morning.  It’s good to wait at least 2 hours after eating so you don’t doze off.  If you meditate with your eyes closed and you nod off, try meditating with your eyes open, or try walking meditation (there’s a download on that page for walking meditation). This is a simple and effective way of reducing mental and physical stress, of feeling more calm. I hope it’s useful for you.  There is a wealth of information available online, in bookstores, and in libraries.  I hope I have helped point you in a good starting direction. Peace to all, Deirdre — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Hi everyone, TJ asked me to share with you about the meditation I have been practicing —  it’s virtually eliminated my anxiety.  I can’t guarantee it will work exactly the same way for everyone, but you won’t know until you try. As many of you know, Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) has as one of its major roots a form of meditation called "mindfulness", which comes primarily from Buddhist practice.  CBT has been very successful in treatment of depression and anxiety. Peace to all, Deirdre

Thank you SO MUCH for posting this Deirdre  You are a truly kind human being! I have been through CBT based programs twice now and the therapists have barely explained this stuff at all. Thankfully you have helped me to learn something at last! Be well, — _TJ_ <TJ_IREL at YAHOO dot IE — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Peace, compassion and brotherhood

Question:

| Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet who gave the world a message of | peace and compassion. | | However, from early on, the message of Jesus was adulterated by the | Catholic Church who elevated Him to the status of God. | | Muslims may therefore be pleased to learn of following Christian | groups who have corrected this error. | | Evolutionary Christianity | http://www.evolutionarychristianity.org/ | | Christian Pantheists and Panentheists | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christian_Pantheists_and_Panentheists/ | | | Peter The term Christian Pantheist makes as much sense as the phrase Muslim Christian. Alan Cossey

Response:

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God. Not the words of Jesus

Didn’t say they were. They are the words of John inspired by the Holy Spirit. In Christ’s own words: John 10:30  I and the Father are one." Comment: The Father (the Universe) and each one of us are inseparably one.

Your opinion I presume. But in spite of this unity, most of us don’t feel it. Jesus was different. He felt he and the Father were one.

And you personally know what Jesus felt? John 10:38  but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Comment: We are all in the Father (the Universe) and the Universe is in all of us. But again, in spite of this unity, most of us don’t feel it. Jesus was different and could do works to prove he was different.

You obviously don’t believe in Jesus or his words. What is your proof that we are all in the Father, contrary to what Jesus has said? You obviously do not believe in the Father. You obviously do not believe in God. God is the creator of the universe. How can the creator be what he created? If you believe in God, and in God’s word, God said he created man in His image. John 14:10  Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Comment: When a person speaks a truth of the Universe, he does not speak on his own authority, but on the authority of the Universe. The Universe is _in_ him and he is _in_ the Universe. The Universe is the Father that Jesus spoke of.

You are a very confused and disturbed individual. John 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. Comment: A true statement. Jesus is in the Father (the Universe) and the Universe is in Jesus. Jesus believed and knew and felt it. This gave him power to do his works.

Where did Jesus ever say that the Father was the universe? Where did God ever say that he was the universe? You apparently follow the teachings of man, and not God. Why do you lead people astray? There is only one objective truth. If people can find this truth, they can be united.

What you say is that man can redeem himself?

Response:

Comment by Peter: We are all in the Father (the Universe) and the Universe is in all of us. But again, in spite of this unity, most of us don’t feel it. Jesus was different and could do works to prove he was different. What is your proof that we are all in the Father, contrary to what Jesus has said?

Where did Jesus say we are not in the Father? God is the creator of the universe.

Where did Jesus say that? God said he created man in His image.

Where did Jesus say that? There is only one objective truth. If people can find this truth, they can be united. What you say is that man can redeem himself?

How can Christians redeem themselves in the eyes of Muslims and Jews for turning the prophet Jesus into a False God? If Christians wish to redeem themselves, surely they must first admit that Jesus was a prophet, rather than God. Then it may be possible for reconciliation and unity. Best wishes, Peter

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Comment by Peter: We are all in the Father (the Universe) and the Universe is in all of us. But again, in spite of this unity, most of us don’t feel it. Jesus was different and could do works to prove he was different. What is your proof that we are all in the Father, contrary to what Jesus has said? Where did Jesus say we are not in the Father?

Jesus said in John 14:6 "No one comes to the Father except through me." Unless you come to Christ, you cannot come to the Father. Where did Jesus say that we are in the Father? God is the creator of the universe. Where did Jesus say that?

You are so easily misled. I didn’t say that Jesus said that. God said he created man in His image. Where did Jesus say that?

I didn’t say that Jesus said that either. Don’t you comprehend what you read? No wonder you are so confused. Read Genesis 1:27. There is only one objective truth. If people can find this truth, they can be united. What you say is that man can redeem himself? How can Christians redeem themselves in the eyes of Muslims and Jews for turning the prophet Jesus into a False God?

Christians do not need to redeem themselves to Muslims or Jews. Jesus has redeemed Muslims and Jews, but they have rejected Him, as have you. You provide links to pantheism. You apparently are a pantheist. You have a belief in and worship all gods. It is you that worships false gods. If Christians wish to redeem themselves, surely they must first admit that Jesus was a prophet, rather than God.

To do so would be to deny God, and to worhsip false gods, as you do. Then it may be possible for reconciliation and unity.

Reconciliation and unity with what? Christ has already reconciled man with God. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Jesus said in John 14:6 "No one comes to the Father except through me."

I take this is a metaphor for following the example of Jesus to the best of our ability. Unless you come to Christ, you cannot come to the Father. Where did Jesus say that we are in the Father?

If he is in the Father and we follow his example, we must be in the Father too. God is the creator of the universe. Where did Jesus say that? You are so easily misled. I didn’t say that Jesus said that.

So, Jesus never taught that God created the Universe. In this regard, Christian Pantheists follow Jesus perfectly. God said he created man in His image. Where did Jesus say that? I didn’t say that Jesus said that either. Don’t you comprehend what you read?

So, Jesus never taught that God created man in His image. In this regard too, Christian Pantheists follow Jesus perfectly. No wonder you are so confused. Read Genesis 1:27.

Genesis is pre-Christian myth. Surely Jesus knew better than to believe myth? Best wishes, Peter

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus said in John 14:6 "No one comes to the Father except through me." I take this is a metaphor for following the example of Jesus to the best of our ability. Unless you come to Christ, you cannot come to the Father. Where did Jesus say that we are in the Father? If he is in the Father and we follow his example, we must be in the Father too.

You avoided the question. God is the creator of the universe. Where did Jesus say that? You are so easily misled. I didn’t say that Jesus said that. So, Jesus never taught that God created the Universe.

I didn’t say that either. In this regard, Christian Pantheists follow Jesus perfectly.

Unfortunately, you don’t. As a pantheist, you worship many gods. You break the 1st commandment. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -God said he created man in His image. Where did Jesus say that? I didn’t say that Jesus said that either. Don’t you comprehend what you read? So, Jesus never taught that God created man in His image. In this regard too, Christian Pantheists follow Jesus perfectly. No wonder you are so confused. Read Genesis 1:27. Genesis is pre-Christian myth. Surely Jesus knew better than to believe myth?

If that is so, why then did Jesus refer to Moses and the prophets and the things they taught? Peter, your pantheism causes you great confusion.

Response:

As a pantheist, you worship many gods. You break the 1st commandment.

No. Pantheism is monotheistic. Pantheists define God as "The Totality of Being" which could also be called "Nature" or "The Universe" There is only one such entity. Surely Jesus knew better than to believe myth? If that is so, why then did Jesus refer to Moses and the prophets and the things they taught? Peter, your pantheism causes you great confusion.

Well he may have believed what Moses and the prophets before him said, but on the other hand, being politically savvy, he may have used what they said while all the time believing that those are the kinds of things you have to say if you wish to be seen as an authority by the Jews. But I believe he sincerely wanted to create a new religion which would be an improvement on the existing religion of the Jews. The Evolutionary Christians and Christian Pantheists are trying to improve on traditional Christianity. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — "Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles to the largest creations of the cosmos.  It is the only religion capable of scientific truth." Albert Einstein

Response:

As a pantheist, you worship many gods. You break the 1st commandment. No. Pantheism is monotheistic. Pantheists define God as "The Totality of Being" which could also be called "Nature" or "The Universe" There is only one such entity.

That is a pantheistic definition. Not God’s description of who He is. So, basically you worship man. Surely Jesus knew better than to believe myth? If that is so, why then did Jesus refer to Moses and the prophets and the things they taught? Peter, your pantheism causes you great confusion. Well he may have believed what Moses and the prophets before him said, but on the other hand, being politically savvy, he may have used what they said while all the time believing that those are the kinds of things you have to say if you wish to be seen as an authority by the Jews.

So, you are calling Jesus a liar, a scammer, a coniving individual? However, you say that your views are more in line with Jesus than other Christians. So, your religion is a lie and a scam?

Response:

That is a pantheistic definition. Not God’s description of who He is. So, basically you worship man.

Well, I believe that "God’s description of who He is" found in the Bible was written by ancient men, so the pantheist definition by modern men, should be no less valid. So, you are calling Jesus a liar, a scammer, a coniving individual?

Not at all. Jesus wanted to replace Judaism with a new religion, but if he had revealed his intentions at the start of his mission, he would have been arrested for heresy before he had accomplished anything at all. So I argue that in the interest of the greater good, he would have had to use a degree of deception. That is perfectly honorable but would have created different impressions in different peoples minds as to what he really believed. Regards, Peter The pantheistic Ibn Arabi preached a universal religion which comprises all religions and unites all beliefs. See: The Rational and Mystical Interpretations of Islam by A. E. Affifi http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1656&C=1640 Evolutionary Christianity http://www.evolutionarychristianity.org/ Christian Pantheists and Panentheists http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christian_Pantheists_and_Panentheists/ The Epilogue of "Out of My Life and Thought" Albert Schweitzer http://www.chapman.edu/schweitzer/sch.reading3.html Does the Universe Care? Brother William SSF http://www.sof-in-australia.org/doestheu.htm The Environmental Crisis: A Challenge to Classical Christianity Lloyd Geering http://www.pirm.org.nz/pe2_christnature.html The Confluence of Religions Teilhard de Chardin http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1970/v27-1-article5.htm Recovering Christian Pantheism as the Lost Gospel of Creation http://www.christianecology.org/ConsiderLillies.html A Christian Derivation of Pantheism http://www.pantheist.net/society/fader.html Christianity and Pantheism http://www.pantheist.net/society/christianity_and_pan_fox.html On Christian Panentheism Original Blessing Not Original Sin Matthew Fox http://www.nfgcc.org/mattfox.htm The Coming of the Cosmic Christ Review of Matthew Fox’s book by the same name http://www.frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.html Other Pages A Call for a New Reformation John S. Spong http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html A Theology of Joy: God in Process Thought http://www.christianecology.org/TheologyJoy.html Devotion to Truth http://www.pantheist.net/society/devotion_to_truth.html The God of Pantheism http://www.pantheist.net/society/god_of_pantheism.html Home page of the Universal Pantheist Society http://www.pantheist.net/ Home page of the World Pantheist Movement http://www.pantheism.net/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — "Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles to the largest creations of the cosmos.  It is the only religion capable of scientific truth." Albert Einstein

Response:

That is a pantheistic definition. Not God’s description of who He is. So, basically you worship man. Well, I believe that "God’s description of who He is" found in the Bible was written by ancient men, so the pantheist definition by modern men, should be no less valid.

Not exactly. You seem to have some belief in the New Testament. And, you say God’s description "found in the Bible was written by ancient men". In the New Testament it is written in 2 Peter 1:21 "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost", and in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."  God’s descriptions then were given to the ancient men by God, even the ancient men in the Old Testament, which you describe as myth. You seem to have conflict either with your own teachings, or your interpretations of those teachings. So, you are calling Jesus a liar, a scammer, a coniving individual? Not at all. Jesus wanted to replace Judaism with a new religion,

Yes you are calling him a scammer. You say so in the following paragraph, that it is perfectly honorable to use deception.To deceive, you have to lie. There is no difference between a big lie or a little lie, they are both lies. Jesus was not here to replace Judaism with a new religion. He was here to do the will of God, which was the redemption of mankind. if he had revealed his intentions at the start of his mission, he would have been arrested for heresy before he had accomplished anything at all. So I argue that in the interest of the greater good, he would have had to use a degree of deception. That is perfectly honorable but would have created different impressions in different peoples minds as to what he really believed.

Jesus never used deception in doing the work He was sent to do by God. By doing so, He would have done contrary to the will of God. Jesus said "I come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me." If He came in the Fathers name, and used deception, it would have had to be with the Fathers permission. However, that would make God deceptive, but God cannot be deceptive because he is righteous, just, and holy. Is your god unrighteous, unjust, and not holy? Being deceptive is honorable in your beliefs?  And you say the Old Testament is a myth. You need only to look at what you are saying if you want a myth. And if there is any deceiving going on, it is your pantheism that is deceiving you, and they are doing an excellent job of it.

Response:

Hi SHOGUN…..being DECEPTIVE is holy and just in the islam belief system! I know that sounds "retarded" in a religion that preaches that they are just and rightteous but that’s just the way it is in Islam, it’s a religion playing second fiddle to the bible and it "attempts" to scare the Arabians at first, and now anybody else it can get it’s claws on, into converting or dying by the sword (so islam is as PEACEFUL as Hitler was peaceful to the Jews for that matter, in other words it simply ain’t anything that it preaches via the daily lies and minutia it spews). +Here are lovely quotes from the Koran itself, feel FREE to verify, and i LOVE the best part! What’s the BEST part you may ask??? The lying muslims that are going to be answering this thread on the post stating that…."Oh…you misinterprit what the Koran says" …. or my personal mosque pre-programmed lie…" Ohhhh…the Koran is holy and is meant to be read in Arabic ONLY!"…LOL..i speak Arabic and this stuff below is the translation….this is ALL in black and white from the Koran……check it out…. Surah IX:5-6 "Kill those who join other gods with god wherever you may find them" Surah VIII:12 "I will instill terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, then and strike off from them every fingertip" Surah XLVII:4 " When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; tehn when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" +My personal favorite…. Surah V:51 "Believers do NOT take jews or Christians as friends (this is WHAT moe means by INFIDELS by the way!). They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, then he is surely one of them. God will not guide eveil doers" +WOW eh? islam sure is a 100% peaceful religion!! Yuppers! SIGN ME UP IMMEDIATELY to be full of hate and kill whomever ain’t a muslim. IF islam where, and sorry to break it to you because it isn’t, a true religion, it would NOT be preaching death to non-muslims. My muslim "brainwashed" friends, IT’S NEVER too late to tell the Mullah at the local mosque to go fly a kyte and to start living an unbrainwashed lifestyle. Why be sooo shut-in mentally by snares of a deceptive religion? You have a CHOICE and that choice is Jesus because through him you have LIFE! moe can take his parkinson’s and delusional antics to the garbage can. Peace my brothers and sisters! DON’T BE SCARED BECAUSE JESUS LOVES YOU! Johnie Faisal

Response:

Jesus said "I come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me." If He came in the Fathers name, and used deception, it would have had to be with the Fathers permission. However, that would make God deceptive, but God cannot be deceptive because he is righteous, just, and holy.

If God was righteous, just and holy, God would not allow the rape and murder of innocent children. Is your god unrighteous, unjust, and not holy?

Jesus said the most important commandment was to love God with all ones heart and with all ones might. If one can do this, then one can love God without expecting God to be righteous, just or holy. As I mentioned before, Christian Pantheists believe God is the Universe (or Nature if that term is preferred). We simply love God for giving us life and do not expect more from God than that. Best wishes, Peter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — "Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles to the largest creations of the cosmos.  It is the only religion capable of scientific truth." Albert Einstein

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus said "I come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me." If He came in the Fathers name, and used deception, it would have had to be with the Fathers permission. However, that would make God deceptive, but God cannot be deceptive because he is righteous, just, and holy. If God was righteous, just and holy, God would not allow the rape and murder of innocent children.

Again, you show your misunderstanding of the Bible and of God’s word.  God gave man the the freedom to choose between right and wrong. It is man that is responsible for the rape and murder of children as well as adults. There should also be no wars either, according to what you say. And yet Jesus says in Matthew 24:6 "And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet." and in Mark 13:7 "And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet."  God is righteous, just and holy. It is man that is not. Is your god unrighteous, unjust, and not holy? Jesus said the most important commandment was to love God with all ones heart and with all ones might. If one can do this, then one can love God without expecting God to be righteous, just or holy.

Explain to me how God is not righteous, just or holy? He himself said in Isaiah 45:21 "And there is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Saviour; there isnone besides me." In Isaiah 5:16  "But the Lord of hosts is exaulted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness." By saying that one can love God without expecting him to be righteous, just or holy, you have put yourself before God, and you pass judgement on God. Who are you to pass judgement on God? As I mentioned before, Christian Pantheists believe God is the Universe (or Nature if that term is preferred).

What you believe is a false. Explain how the created (the universe) can be the creator (God). Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The Old Testament (or as you called it, the myth) was written by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). You now have a great conflict in your interpretation. God says that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He said this several times. He was before the universe and he will be after the universe. In Matthew, Mark and Luke it says that "Heaven and earth shall pass away: But my words shall never pass away." Heavens and earth and all celestial bodies are the universe. These shall pass away, but Gods words shall not. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is forever. The universe is not forever. Now explain how God is the universe.

Response:

Again, you show your misunderstanding of the Bible and of God’s word.  God gave man the the freedom to choose between right and wrong.

Nevertheless, your so-called all-loving/all-powerful god has the power to stop such evil as the rape and murder of children, but for some sick reason, fails to stop the evil. How far can one bow to such a Satanic creature? Explain to me how God is not righteous, just or holy?

God has also just killed thousands of innocent children with a tsunami. Who are you to pass judgement on God?

Who are you then to say God is righteous? Are you not passing judgement when you say God is righteous? Explain how the created (the universe) can be the creator

Since the Universe includes everything that exists, the Universe includes God. Therefore if God has always existed, the Universe has always existed. Furthermore, since God is infinite and the Universe cannot be larger than infinite, God and the Universe must be the same. Best wishes, Peter

Response:

Again, you show your misunderstanding of the Bible and of God’s word.  God gave man the the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Nevertheless, your so-called all-loving/all-powerful god has the power to stop such evil as the rape and murder of children, but for some sick reason, fails to stop the evil. How far can one bow to such a Satanic creature?

Mankind made the decision to do it their way which also happens to be Satan’s way.  This isn’t God’s fault but YOURS. Explain to me how God is not righteous, just or holy? God has also just killed thousands of innocent children with a tsunami.

God didn’t do a thing.  In fact, that is what you and the rest of mankind wanted – for God not to do a thing.  You screwed it up so don’t blame God. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who are you to pass judgement on God? Who are you then to say God is righteous? Are you not passing judgement when you say God is righteous? Explain how the created (the universe) can be the creator Since the Universe includes everything that exists, the Universe includes God. Therefore if God has always existed, the Universe has always existed. Furthermore, since God is infinite and the Universe cannot be larger than infinite, God and the Universe must be the same. Best wishes, Peter

Response:

Again, you show your misunderstanding of the Bible and of God’s word.  God gave man the the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Nevertheless, your so-called all-loving/all-powerful god has the power to stop such evil as the rape and murder of children, but for some sick reason, fails to stop the evil. How far can one bow to such a Satanic creature?

As I suspected, you do not believe in God. Explain to me how God is not righteous, just or holy? God has also just killed thousands of innocent children with a tsunami.

It was your universe (or nature as you call it) that caused the tsunami. It happened before, it will happen again, and as long as people live in low lying areas near oceans, they may die. Plagues and famine and disasters and war are foretold in the Bible. All people will die someday. Whether of old age or of disaster, we die. No one lives on earth forever. We die when our days are up. Who are you to pass judgement on God? Who are you then to say God is righteous? Are you not passing judgement when you say God is righteous?

No. God says he is righteous, and just. Don’t you  read or don’t you comprehend? Explain how the created (the universe) can be the creator Since the Universe includes everything that exists, the Universe includes God. Therefore if God has always existed, the Universe has always existed.

You still don’t answer the question. I could ask you which came first, the chicken or the egg. You wouldn’t answer that either. Furthermore, since God is infinite and the Universe cannot be larger than infinite, God and the Universe must be the same.

You confuse infinite with eternal. They are not the same. God is eternal. I can see that you are struggling for answers to the simple questions that I have asked you.

Response:

Hi SHOGUN…..being DECEPTIVE is holy and just in the islam belief system!

That is because Islam is a deceptive religion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -know that sounds "retarded" in a religion that preaches that they are just and rightteous but that’s just the way it is in Islam, it’s a religion playing second fiddle to the bible and it "attempts" to scare the Arabians at first, and now anybody else it can get it’s claws on, into converting or dying by the sword (so islam is as PEACEFUL as Hitler was peaceful to the Jews for that matter, in other words it simply ain’t anything that it preaches via the daily lies and minutia it spews). +Here are lovely quotes from the Koran itself, feel FREE to verify, and i LOVE the best part! What’s the BEST part you may ask??? The lying muslims that are going to be answering this thread on the post stating that…."Oh…you misinterprit what the Koran says" …. or my personal mosque pre-programmed lie…" Ohhhh…the Koran is holy and is meant to be read in Arabic ONLY!"…LOL..i speak Arabic and this stuff below is the translation….this is ALL in black and white from the Koran……check it out…. Surah IX:5-6 "Kill those who join other gods with god wherever you may find them" Surah VIII:12 "I will instill terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, then and strike off from them every fingertip" Surah XLVII:4 " When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; tehn when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" +My personal favorite…. Surah V:51 "Believers do NOT take jews or Christians as friends (this is WHAT moe means by INFIDELS by the way!). They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, then he is surely one of them. God will not guide eveil doers" +WOW eh? islam sure is a 100% peaceful religion!! Yuppers! SIGN ME UP IMMEDIATELY to be full of hate and kill whomever ain’t a muslim. IF islam where, and sorry to break it to you because it isn’t, a true religion, it would NOT be preaching death to non-muslims. My muslim "brainwashed" friends, IT’S NEVER too late to tell the Mullah at the local mosque to go fly a kyte and to start living an unbrainwashed lifestyle. Why be sooo shut-in mentally by snares of a deceptive religion? You have a CHOICE and that choice is Jesus because through him you have LIFE! moe can take his parkinson’s and delusional antics to the garbage can. Peace my brothers and sisters! DON’T BE SCARED BECAUSE JESUS LOVES YOU! Johnie Faisal

Response:

Mankind made the decision to do it their way which also happens to be Satan’s way.  This isn’t God’s fault but YOURS.

Insults will get you nowhere

Response:

No. God says he is righteous, and just. Don’t you  read or don’t you comprehend?

I comprehend that scripture was written by men, so God has not claimed to be righteous or just. Best wishes, Peter

Response:

Mankind made the decision to do it their way which also happens to be Satan’s way.  This isn’t God’s fault but YOURS. Insults will get you nowhere

It’s not intended to be an insult.  Mankind made the decisionto do it their way rather than God’s.  Funny, your attitude is similar to that of  both Adam and Eve when confronted with their disobedience.  Rather than excepting the blame, Eve blamed Satan and Adam had the audacity to blame God because God had given him the woman. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

No. God says he is righteous, and just. Don’t you  read or don’t you comprehend? I comprehend that scripture was written by men, so God has not claimed to be righteous or just.

Then you reject not only the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well, and God himself as well as Jesus. The New Testament says in 2 Peter 1:21 "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." In 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." "A God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." Deut. 32:4 By rejecting the Old and New Testaments, you don’t believe in God or Jesus.

Response:

I comprehend that scripture was written by men, so God has not claimed to be righteous or just. Then you reject not only the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well and God himself as well as Jesus.

Not at all. I accept the Bible as a mixture of truth and interesting fiction.

Response:

Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet who gave the world a message of peace and compassion. However, from early on, the message of Jesus was adulterated by the Catholic Church who elevated Him to the status of God. Muslims may therefore be pleased to learn of following Christian groups who have corrected this error. Evolutionary Christianity http://www.evolutionarychristianity.org/ Christian Pantheists and Panentheists http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christian_Pantheists_and_Panentheists/ Peter

Response:

Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet who gave the world a message of peace and compassion. However, from early on, the message of Jesus was adulterated by the Catholic Church who elevated Him to the status of God.

What error? Are you saying that the Apostles adulterated Christ’s own words? Christ was not elevated to the status of God. He is God: John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God. In Christ’s own words: John 10:30  I and the Father are one." John 10:38  but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." John 14:10  Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. John 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. Muslims may therefore be pleased to learn of following Christian groups who have corrected this error.

Why do you lead people astray?

Response:

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.

Not the words of Jesus In Christ’s own words: John 10:30  I and the Father are one."

Comment: The Father (the Universe) and each one of us are inseparably one. But in spite of this unity, most of us don’t feel it. Jesus was different. He felt he and the Father were one. John 10:38  but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Comment: We are all in the Father (the Universe) and the Universe is in all of us. But again, in spite of this unity, most of us don’t feel it. Jesus was different and could do works to prove he was different. John 14:10  Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Comment: When a person speaks a truth of the Universe, he does not speak on his own authority, but on the authority of the Universe. The Universe is _in_ him and he is _in_ the Universe. The Universe is the Father that Jesus spoke of. John 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Comment: A true statement. Jesus is in the Father (the Universe) and the Universe is in Jesus. Jesus believed and knew and felt it. This gave him power to do his works. Why do you lead people astray?

There is only one objective truth. If people can find this truth, they can be united. Teilhard de Chardin predicted "The Confluence of Religions" See: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1970/v27-1-article5.htm The pantheistic Ibn Arabi preached a universal religion which comprises all religions and unites all beliefs. See: The Rational and Mystical Interpretations of Islam by A. E. Affifi http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1656&C=1640 The following sites provide futher insight. Evolutionary Christianity http://www.evolutionarychristianity.org/ Christian Pantheists and Panentheists http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christian_Pantheists_and_Panentheists/ Best wishes, Peter. Futher references On Christian Pantheism The Epilogue of "Out of My Life and Thought" Albert Schweitzer http://www.chapman.edu/schweitzer/sch.reading3.html Does the Universe Care? Brother William SSF http://www.sof-in-australia.org/doestheu.htm The Environmental Crisis: A Challenge to Classical Christianity Lloyd Geering http://www.pirm.org.nz/pe2_christnature.html The Confluence of Religions Teilhard de Chardin http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1970/v27-1-article5.htm Recovering Christian Pantheism as the Lost Gospel of Creation http://www.christianecology.org/ConsiderLillies.html A Christian Derivation of Pantheism http://www.pantheist.net/society/fader.html Christianity and Pantheism http://www.pantheist.net/society/christianity_and_pan_fox.html On Christian Panentheism Original Blessing Not Original Sin Matthew Fox http://www.nfgcc.org/mattfox.htm The Coming of the Cosmic Christ Review of Matthew Fox’s book by the same name http://www.frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.html Other Pages A Call for a New Reformation John S. Spong http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html A Theology of Joy: God in Process Thought http://www.christianecology.org/TheologyJoy.html Devotion to Truth http://www.pantheist.net/society/devotion_to_truth.html The God of Pantheism http://www.pantheist.net/society/god_of_pantheism.html Home page of the Universal Pantheist Society http://www.pantheist.net/ Home page of the World Pantheist Movement http://www.pantheism.net/

Response:

Taoism and illegitimate dualities

Question:

>to acheive buddhahood is very very very very hard. it is all

THE BIBLE AND THE RELIGIOUS WRITINGS OF THE WORLD

Question:

Many people agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but is it exclusively inspired? What about the Upanishads? Or the Koran?

…  If we are to regard the Bible as being truly inspired by God, we can only conclude that he had no hand whatsoever in these other writings. To profess otherwise is to mischaracterize God as someone who Himself is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

Ever considered that you are a little, tiny, insignificant human being that is limited to the use of logic. Perhaps God works in paradoxes, God is all-powerful right? God made all, right? Also the Upanishads and the Q’uran. So who are you to choose and condemn God’s creations. That is a deep insult to God – that’s why you’re still not with him. The bible is just a book of morals, although it inspires immoral things unfortunately. Concerning existence and spirituality… very little. Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Bible alone gives us the answer for living successfully in this life and the life to come. In fact the Bible says,

Why We Critique Only Islam!

Question:

Their hope is izlam to be misunderstood.  That is why Allah will punish them.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey, that sounds like "The Religion of Peace!"  Amazingly, what you’ll read from JUNO and the rest of the militant Islamists and their sympathizers in this group is the lament of how "Islam is misunderstood." Throw in a concept of Fatwa (i.e. Islamic/Koranic endorsed contract killing) and you have the perfect recipe for Islamic violence. Maybe this will explain: [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. [4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority. [5-51] O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [3-151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [Qu'ran 9.29] Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Quran: 9:29-32]: Fight against those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, until they are subdued and pay jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) … A typical invitation to the people of the book (Christians and Jews) was: "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax (Ziziya), or fight to death." [Surah 8:39; 9:5, 29: 47:4] " It is a ‘divine’ commandment to persecute Jews and Christians, to defeat them in battle and then to consign them either to slavery or to death." [9:73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. [8:12] I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them [9:14] Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers, [8:17] It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself [52.45] Leave them then till they meet that day of theirs wherein they shall be made to swoon (with terror): There is no compulsion in Islam as long as one is a Muslim. [2-256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Islam clearly cannot allow for any other faith. From the hadith: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4366: It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. Sahih Muslim The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman) Book 001, Number 0033: It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. Well, if you liked the above, you will love the following: Wife beating is GOOD for her. Muhammed said so: 3) THE TRADITIONS (HADITH) ON ISLAMIC WIFE BEATING The Hadith contain more information relative to how wife beating existed in the early Islamic culture. There are a variety of writings, all illustrating various facets of the husband wife relationship and physical violence against the wife. I will mention several of them to bring out the wife’s lower position in the marriage, and the exact type of wife beating that occurred in Muhammad’s time, with his approval. In some cases due to the length I will only quote relevant portions of a Hadith. HISTORICAL CONTEXUAL BACKGROUND ON 4:34 Here is the reference for the background of 4:34. "A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, (which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on, Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best". [To beat your wife is best.] The above quote comes from Razi’s "At-Tafsir al-Kabir" on 4:34 (Quoted in Beyond the Veil [7]. Razi is one of the greatest Muslim scholars. Here is a Hadith from Bukhari [8], vol. 7, # 715, that supports the case: "Narrated Ikrima: ‘Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah’s messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow."" Let’s note several items from this Hadith. 1) A woman was beaten by her husband because of marriage discord. The women did not commit any illegal sexual act. She was beaten and bruised because her husband said she was "disobedient" and he thought she wanted to go back to her former husband. 2) The Muslim women were suffering more than the non-Muslim women (via Aisha’s comment), note it is said in the plural. This tells you just how good Muslim women back then really had it. Things were so bad for them, that they had to "support" each other. 3) The woman was badly bruised. 4) Muhammad did not re-prove the man for beating his wife. In fact, he reproached the women for saying Rahman was impotent. Even though she was bruised, Muhammad accepted it. OTHER HADITH AND TRADITIONS ON WIFE BEATING Following are a number of various Hadith that relate instances or comments on wife beating. Again, I have edited several of these because of length. ABU JAHM, A WELL KNOW WIFE BEATER SAHIH MUSLIM [9]. Book 009, Number 3512: When my period of ‘Idda was over, I mentioned to him [Muhammad] that Mu’awiya b. Abu Sufyan and Jahm had sent proposal of marriage to me, whereupon Allah’s said: As for Abu Jahm, he does not put down his staff from his shoulder, and as for Mu’awiya, he is a poor man having no property; marry Usama b. Zaid. I objected

… read more »

Response:

Hey, that sounds like "The Religion of Peace!"  Amazingly, what you’ll read from JUNO and the rest of the militant Islamists and their sympathizers in this group is the lament of how "Islam is misunderstood."  Throw in a concept of Fatwa (i.e. Islamic/Koranic endorsed contract killing) and you have the perfect recipe for Islamic violence.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe this will explain: [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. [4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority. [5-51] O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [3-151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [Qu'ran 9.29] Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Quran: 9:29-32]: Fight against those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, until they are subdued and pay jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) … A typical invitation to the people of the book (Christians and Jews) was: "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax (Ziziya), or fight to death." [Surah 8:39; 9:5, 29: 47:4] " It is a ‘divine’ commandment to persecute Jews and Christians, to defeat them in battle and then to consign them either to slavery or to death." [9:73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. [8:12] I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them [9:14] Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers, [8:17] It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself [52.45] Leave them then till they meet that day of theirs wherein they shall be made to swoon (with terror): There is no compulsion in Islam as long as one is a Muslim. [2-256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Islam clearly cannot allow for any other faith. From the hadith: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4366: It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. Sahih Muslim The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman) Book 001, Number 0033: It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. Well, if you liked the above, you will love the following: Wife beating is GOOD for her. Muhammed said so: 3) THE TRADITIONS (HADITH) ON ISLAMIC WIFE BEATING The Hadith contain more information relative to how wife beating existed in the early Islamic culture. There are a variety of writings, all illustrating various facets of the husband wife relationship and physical violence against the wife. I will mention several of them to bring out the wife’s lower position in the marriage, and the exact type of wife beating that occurred in Muhammad’s time, with his approval. In some cases due to the length I will only quote relevant portions of a Hadith. HISTORICAL CONTEXUAL BACKGROUND ON 4:34 Here is the reference for the background of 4:34. "A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, (which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on, Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best". [To beat your wife is best.] The above quote comes from Razi’s "At-Tafsir al-Kabir" on 4:34 (Quoted in Beyond the Veil [7]. Razi is one of the greatest Muslim scholars. Here is a Hadith from Bukhari [8], vol. 7, # 715, that supports the case: "Narrated Ikrima: ‘Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah’s messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow."" Let’s note several items from this Hadith. 1) A woman was beaten by her husband because of marriage discord. The women did not commit any illegal sexual act. She was beaten and bruised because her husband said she was "disobedient" and he thought she wanted to go back to her former husband. 2) The Muslim women were suffering more than the non-Muslim women (via Aisha’s comment), note it is said in the plural. This tells you just how good Muslim women back then really had it. Things were so bad for them, that they had to "support" each other. 3) The woman was badly bruised. 4) Muhammad did not re-prove the man for beating his wife. In fact, he reproached the women for saying Rahman was impotent. Even though she was bruised, Muhammad accepted it. OTHER HADITH AND TRADITIONS ON WIFE BEATING Following are a number of various Hadith that relate instances or comments on wife beating. Again, I have edited several of these because of length. ABU JAHM, A WELL KNOW WIFE BEATER SAHIH MUSLIM [9]. Book 009, Number 3512: When my period of ‘Idda was over, I mentioned to him [Muhammad] that Mu’awiya b. Abu Sufyan and Jahm had sent proposal of marriage to me, whereupon Allah’s said: As for Abu Jahm, he does not put down his staff from his shoulder, and as for Mu’awiya, he is a poor man having no property; marry Usama b. Zaid. I objected to him, but he again said: Marry Usama; so I married him. Allah blessed there in and I was envied (by others). SAHIH MUSLIM Book 009, Number 3526: So I informed him [Muhammad]. (By that time) Mu’awiya, Abu Jahm and Usama b. Zaid had given her the proposal of marriage. Allah’s Messenger said: So far as Mu’awiya is concerned, he is a poor man without any property. So far as Abu Jahm is

… read more »

Response:

Maybe this will explain: Condemnation of women in izlam: The famous Muslim Author Researcher Ghazzali mentions about the punishments which has been ordered upon the women because of Eve’s expulsion from heavens: The Punishments: 01. The Monthly Menstruation 02. The pain of Childbirth 03.The pain of Pregnancy 04.The Separation from the parents and marriage to a stranger 05. the Not having control over her own person 06. The inheritance of a lesser share than men. 07. The fact that she must stay secluded in the house 08. The fact of Her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce. 09. The fact that It is being lawful for man to have 4 wives but for a woman to have only 1 husband. 10. The fact that she must not go out of the house unless accompanied by a near relative. 11. The fact that she must keep even her head covered inside the house. 12. The fact that 2 women’s testimonies in the court of law is same as the testimony of 1 man. 13. The fact that men take part in Friday Prayer and Feast for funerals while women do not. 14. the reality of their disqualification for rulership, governership and judgeship. 15. The fact that if their husbands die, they must observe a waiting period of 4 months and 10 days before they marry again. 16. The fact that if their husbands divorce them, they must observe a waiting period of 3 months or 3 menstrual periods before they marry again. 17. The fact that merit has 100 parts, only one is attributable to women while 999 are attributed to men. 18. The fact that if women are profligate they will be given half as much torment as the men on the resurrection day. Now, lets look at a few exact quotes from the experts of Quran’s verses about women: "And all married women are forbidden unto you except those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery." (Quran: Al Nisa: 4 – 24) "They ask Thee concerning Women’s courses. Say to them: ‘They are a Hurt and a Pollution: So keep away from women in their courses and do not approach them until they are clean.’ But when they are purified, Yee may approach them in any manner, time or place. Ordained for you by Allah, for Allah loves those who turn to him constantly and he loves those who keep themselves Pure and Clean." (Quran: Al Baqarah: 2 – 222) "O Prophet! Why holdest Thou to be forbidden That which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to Please Thy consorts. But Allah is Of the Forgiving. (Quran: Al Tahrim: 66 – 1.2) Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will. (Quran: Al Baqarah: 2 – 223) Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence, what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, & beat them. (Quran: Al Nisa 4 – 34) O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her. Specially for you, not for the believers; we know what we have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Quran: Al Ahzab: 33 – 50) As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, confine them to the houses until death take them. (Quran: Al Nisa: 4 – 15) As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies (Quran: Al Nur: 24 – 6) Shall we educate ourselves, so we can educate the whole world on the true nature of izlam. And this is the true stands of Islam on women, the only question remains to Muslim Women is: "Why are you still a muzlim?" May the light of knowledge comes out from beneath the clouds of ignorance and superstition.

Response:

Maybe this will explain: This is what the future looks like for "politically correct" Europe and Australia. Good luck. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. I guess if they weren’t so busy hating Jews and condemning Israelis, they might figure out where their real problems are. Muslims rule major Swedish city – 09 September 2004 from http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ An exclusive series of translations from the Swedish press, made for Jihad Watch by Ali Dashti, who writes: Sweden is one of the worst hit countries in Europe of Muslim immigration and Political Correctness. Now, the police themselves have publicly admitted that they no longer control one of Sweden’s major cities. I have made some exclusive translations from Swedish media. They show the future of Eurabia unless Europeans wake up. I’ve seen the future of Eurabia, and it’s called ‘Sweden.’ Malm is Sweden’s third largest city, after Stockholm and Gothenburg. Once-peaceful Sweden, home of ABBA, IKEA and the Nobel Prize, is increasingly looking like the Middle East on a bad day. All following links to major Swedish newspapers, with a brief translation: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,529910,00.html Malm, Sweden. The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations’s third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Roseng Rd, Malm, for twenty years, and still don’t know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. "Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled" says one of the locals. http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10092861 The number of people emigrating from the city of Malm is reaching record levels. Swedes, who a couple of decades ago decided to open the doors to Muslim "refugees" and asylum seekers, are now turned into refugees in their own country and forced to flee their homes. The people abandoning the city mention crime and fear of the safety of their children as the main reason for leaving. http://w1.sydsvenskan.se/Article.jsp?article=10090830 ALL of the 600 windows at one of the schools in Malm have been broken during the summer holiday. Window smashing alone costs the city millions every year. City buses have been forced to avoid the immigrant ghetto, as they are met with youths throwing rocks or bottles at them if they enter. Earlier this year, a boy of Afghan origin had made plans to blow up his own school. http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10093267 People working at the emergency ward at the major hospital in Malm receive threats every day, and are starting to get used to it. Patients with knives or guns are commonplace. They have discussed could be seen as a provocation. http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10093495 Lisa Nilsson has lived in Manhatten, New York City, for 25 years. After moving back to Malm, Sweden, she now misses the safety of New York. She never walks anywhere in Malm after dark, but takes a taxi everywhere she goes. http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=180423 Rapes in Sweden as a whole have increased by 17% just since the beginning of 2003, and have had a dramatic increase during the past decade. Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace. Two weeks ago, 5 Kurds http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,528363,00.html 22-year-old Swedish woman going out for fresh air gang raped by three strange men. The only said one word to her: "Whore!" Ali Dashti comments: "Stories like this are in Swedish newspapers every week. Swedish media usually take great care not to mention the ethnic background of the perpetrators, but you can usually read it between the lines." One more: how have Swedish politicians reacted to the chaos caused in one of their major cities because of Muslims of whom even the police seem to be afraid? By making it easier for Muslims to enter Sweden: http://www.cphpost.dk/get/81008.html Sweden’s politicians view arranged marriages as a positive tradition: a cultural pattern that immigrants should be allowed to preserve even in Sweden. The Swedish government feels that interfering in arranged marriages is an encroachment upon private life. In addition, immigrant couples can apply for family reunification in Sweden even if they’ve never seen each other before – as long as the marriage is entered in a culture with a tradition of parents arranging marriages on behalf of their children. A 2002 study by V xj University economics professor Jan Ekberg found that immigration cost Swedish taxpayers DKK 33 billion that year, compared to just DKK 10 billion in Denmark. And while one might assume that the rise in costs would result in knee-jerk opposition to immigration, just the opposite has happened in Sweden. A Swedish government commission has proposed abolishing the so-called "seriousness requirement". = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Stupidity is the only universal capital crime: There is no appeal, and execution is carried out by the stupid person himself. Robert A. Heinlein

Response:

Maybe this will explain: [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. [4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority. [5-51] O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [3-151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [Qu'ran 9.29] Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Quran: 9:29-32]: Fight against those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, until they are subdued and pay jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) … A typical invitation to the people of the book (Christians and Jews) was: "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax (Ziziya), or fight to death." [Surah 8:39; 9:5, 29: 47:4] " It is a ‘divine’ commandment to persecute Jews and Christians, to defeat them in battle and then to consign them either to slavery or to death." [9:73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. [8:12] I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them [9:14] Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers, [8:17] It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself [52.45] Leave them then till they meet that day of theirs wherein they shall be made to swoon (with terror): There is no compulsion in Islam as long as one is a Muslim. [2-256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Islam clearly cannot allow for any other faith. From the hadith: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4366: It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. Sahih Muslim The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman) Book 001, Number 0033: It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. Well, if you liked the above, you will love the following: Wife beating is GOOD for her. Muhammed said so: 3) THE TRADITIONS (HADITH) ON ISLAMIC WIFE BEATING The Hadith contain more information relative to how wife beating existed in the early Islamic culture. There are a variety of writings, all illustrating various facets of the husband wife relationship and physical violence against the wife. I will mention several of them to bring out the wife’s lower position in the marriage, and the exact type of wife beating that occurred in Muhammad’s time, with his approval. In some cases due to the length I will only quote relevant portions of a Hadith. HISTORICAL CONTEXUAL BACKGROUND ON 4:34 Here is the reference for the background of 4:34. "A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, (which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: "Get even with him", but then added: "Wait until I think about it". Later on, Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: "We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best". [To beat your wife is best.] The above quote comes from Razi’s "At-Tafsir al-Kabir" on 4:34 (Quoted in Beyond the Veil [7]. Razi is one of the greatest Muslim scholars. Here is a Hadith from Bukhari [8], vol. 7, # 715, that supports the case: "Narrated Ikrima: ‘Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah’s messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow."" Let’s note several items from this Hadith. 1) A woman was beaten by her husband because of marriage discord. The women did not commit any illegal sexual act. She was beaten and bruised because her husband said she was "disobedient" and he thought she wanted to go back to her former husband. 2) The Muslim women were suffering more than the non-Muslim women (via Aisha’s comment), note it is said in the plural. This tells you just how good Muslim women back then really had it. Things were so bad for them, that they had to "support" each other. 3) The woman was badly bruised. 4) Muhammad did not re-prove the man for beating his wife. In fact, he reproached the women for saying Rahman was impotent. Even though she was bruised, Muhammad accepted it. OTHER HADITH AND TRADITIONS ON WIFE BEATING Following are a number of various Hadith that relate instances or comments on wife beating. Again, I have edited several of these because of length. ABU JAHM, A WELL KNOW WIFE BEATER SAHIH MUSLIM [9]. Book 009, Number 3512: When my period of ‘Idda was over, I mentioned to him [Muhammad] that Mu’awiya b. Abu Sufyan and Jahm had sent proposal of marriage to me, whereupon Allah’s said: As for Abu Jahm, he does not put down his staff from his shoulder, and as for Mu’awiya, he is a poor man having no property; marry Usama b. Zaid. I objected to him, but he again said: Marry Usama; so I married him. Allah blessed there in and I was envied (by others). SAHIH MUSLIM Book 009, Number 3526: So I informed him [Muhammad]. (By that time) Mu’awiya, Abu Jahm and Usama b. Zaid had given her the proposal of marriage. Allah’s Messenger said: So far as Mu’awiya is concerned, he is a poor man without any property. So far as Abu Jahm is concerned, he is a great beater of women, but Usama b. Zaid… She pointed with her hand (that she did not approve of the idea of marrying) Usama. But Allah’s Messenger said: Obedience to Allah and obedience to His Messenger is better for thee. She said: So I married him, and I became an object of envy. SAHIH MUSLIM Book 009, Number 3527: She said: Mu’awiya and Abu’l-Jahm were among those who had given me the proposal of marriage. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle said: Mu’awiya is destitute and in poor condition and Abu’l-Jahm is very harsh with women (or he beats women, or like that), you should take Usama b. Zaid (as your husband). COMMENT These three Hadith illustrate that some Muslim husbands could legally beat their wives without any retaliatory consequences. Abu Jahm was known to beat his wives and although Muhammad may not have cared for it, it certainly was allowed within the Islamic community. HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU … read more »

Response:

In the name of allah,most Gracious,most Merciful, All muslem they must start with above , understand please the meaning of that.most of non understanding  Islam ,whom they are just watching CNN ,FOX NEWS or hearing non just people.Its clearly Islam does not sanction violance,be it on Muslims or non Muslims.But they also stressed that,when attacked or their land invaded,Muslims have the right to resist the aggression.So if there is genuin will to address the middle east crisis,a strong warning should be directed to the source of aggression, not to the helpless victims,who are just defending themselves.The question why the Palestinians fight back should be addressed in the light of the non-stop Israeli aggression against the innocent people ,demolishing their homes,destroying their properties ,humiliating their leadership,killing thier children,killing their old men and women….some government like US government still reiterate that it is the Palestinians who must stop violance first.This is unreasonable indeed! Israel refuses to stop its act of aggression and occupation .Still American want the Palestinians to stand with thier hands tied while thier honor being violated,thier houses being destroyed and thier wives and children being slaughtered in cold blood.

Response:

very interesting post.  no replies yet! i’m not a muslim, so i’ll wait for all the muslim replies. just for fun, here’s one thing i really like about islam. it forbids interest.    brilliant! i gather there a ways round it, though. i wonder if the saudi royals put the oil billions in non-interest paying accounts, and if not, how they get square it wit the Q’ran?  does anybody know? psm

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why We Critique Only Islam! By Syed Kamran Mirza Frequently we are facing one common accusation from the Islamists, semi-Islamists and even from the moderate (who are ignorant about Quran and hadiths) Muslims-which is "why only critiquing Islam" and why not critiquing also other religions? This is of course a very prudent question. And this question needs to be answered by the group of critics. Critics may think that enough have been discussed about the fallacies of Islam everywhere in the whole world. By now every simple mind should understand very well as to why we only critique Islam! But I am not surprised by the question, because we must know that-childhood brainwashing of those moderate Muslims and utter hypocrisies of those erudite Islamists they mostly fail to realize the truth simply due to their sheer blind-faith in Islam. In this essay, I would like to make a hypothetical comparison between the Islam and all other major religions of the world. I shall try to establish the very unique and special character of the religion Islam by an honest and impartial judgment. I shall attempt to answer this very prudent question by my own style. That is, I will generate the right answers from the mouth of those questioners themselves. Instead of answering this question, let me ask those Islamists, moderate Muslims and others the following questions: America has a super plural society having many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Buddha’s etc). Every day, every hour or every minute-we are sick and tired of hearing in the radio, TV, or newspapers some very common (colorful) adjectives, such as: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, and Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qeada, and Taliban. My questions here are: why do not we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kinds of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM? In the North America and throughout the western world-there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of only one religion and that is ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of Ummatic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. Ummatic organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western "rotten" society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society. Ultimate result is the scenario of item# 13 below.  In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What is the purpose of such organization? Can we find Jihadi organization in any other religions such: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah, Horkut-ul- Jihad, Horkut-ul-mujahedin, Jaise Muhamad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tahrik-e-Nifaj-shariaat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikhma, Al-badr-Mujaheddin, Jamah-e-Islamia, Hijb-e-Islamia, etc. etc.? We can find several dozens of Jihadi Islamic terrorist organizations exists in every Muslim country throughout the world. Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why? We can find dozens of countries ruled by Islamic Shariaat (Huhud laws) where Quran is the only viable constitution. All Muslim majority countries also have family laws enforced as per Quranic laws. We can still find many Islamic Republics exist in this modern world of 21st century. My questions here are: Can we find any country ruled by Bible, Old Testament or Ghita today? Can we find just one Republic for Christian, Jewish, Hindus or Buddhas? If the answer is no, then please tell us why no? Islam has become a fearful religion in the whole world today. Islamic terrorists are conspiring to kill innocent civilians, especially western civilians everywhere in the whole world. Whole civilized world is in a panic situation for fear of Islamic terrorism. Horrific incident of killing hundreds of innocent school children in Beslan, Russia, terrorism in Philippine, terrorism in Madrid metro train, terrorisms in the hotels, foreign embassies or tourist resorts in Indonesia, Bomb blasting in the Churches, Mosques of Shiite and Qadiani sects of Muslims-all have the cardinal hall marks of peaceful Islam. German police had arrested an al-Qaeda sympathizer and his fianc

Scular Humanism aka atheism is a religion

Question:

NOTE: I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS POST. I POST IT HERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION SHOULD ANYONE LIKE TO DISCUSS IT Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1439150362d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U… http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1F224EC8

Since when is Secular Humanism "aka" atheism? –Billy

Response:

Secularism is not incompatible with theism. A theist could wish for secular government.

Well, you know that bit about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and rendering unto God what is God’s?  Got your separation of church and state right there.  It isn’t taken seriously by too many theists nowadays, but during the time when the US was founded, Quakers and others who did take it seriously were much more involved with history.

Response:

NOTE: I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS POST. I POST IT HERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION SHOULD ANYONE LIKE TO DISCUSS IT

Well, you titled it. Secular Humanism is not the same thing as atheism. I am an atheist. I am not a Humanist, let alone a Secular Humanist.

Response:

NOTE: I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS POST. I POST IT HERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION SHOULD ANYONE LIKE TO DISCUSS IT Well, you titled it. Secular Humanism is not the same thing as atheism. I am an atheist. I am not a Humanist, let alone a Secular Humanist.

Secularism is not incompatible with theism. A theist could wish for secular government. Humanism is not incompatible with religion in general, but it would be hard to reconcile the idea of "man as the measure of all things" with theism. BF

Response:

no …. it isn’t

Response:

  Secular Humanism is a religion

Only if "bald" is a hair-color.

Response:

NOTE: I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS POST. I POST IT HERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION SHOULD ANYONE LIKE TO DISCUSS IT Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1439150362d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&selm=mHCIc.107%24So5.27619%40news.uswest.net http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1F224EC8 Is "Secular Humanism" a "Religion"? —-       John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion.

<etc… I find it quite amusing that some religious folks seek to denigrate atheism (and in this case Humanism) by equating it to religion.  Do they not see the irony in this? Anyway, it all depends on what definition of ‘religion’ you have in mind.  I would say that the generally accepted definition is something along the lines of "belief in, worship of or obedience to a supposed supernatural power or powers".  Clearly atheism and Humanism do not fit this definition, since neither assert the existence of any such supernatural power. If we use a more colloquial definition then the term ‘religion’ could include anything that a person regards as being "of overwhelming importance in their life".  In this case, religion could indeed include atheism or Humanism, or for that matter football or science or pornography or knots or anything else at all *for one particular person*.  Such a definition would not therefore be very useful in characterising the object of such a religion. So, calling atheism or Humanism a religion is either false, or trivial and meaningless.  Take your pick  :-)

Response:

NOTE: I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS POST. I POST IT HERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION SHOULD ANYONE LIKE TO DISCUSS IT Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1439150362d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U… http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1F224EC8 Is "Secular Humanism" a "Religion"? —-       John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950’s, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.       But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."       This page examines two issues:         a.. Secular Humanists and Humanistic courts have admitted that Humanism is a religion.         b.. Why they now claim Humanism is not a religion, in order to avoid problems under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment.      For further reading, see R.J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, chapter 27, "Education as a Religion." He writes,             [T]he state school is a religious institution. As pointed out in Intellectual Schizophrenia, the public school is the established church of today and a substitute institution for the medieval church, dedicated to the same monolithic conception of society. Some years ago, Dewey very candidly discussed "Education as a Religion" (John Dewey, "Education as a Religion," The New Republic, August, 1922, p. 64f.) As Whitehead observed, "The essence of education is that it be religious." (Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education, NY: Mentor Books, 1952, p. 26)                  The public or state schools have thus been inescapably religious. Their "common faith" has been described as "made up of elements provided by Rousseau, Jefferson, August Comte, and John Dewey. ‘Civil religion’ is an apt designation for this faith." (G.H. Williams, Harvard Divinity School Bulletin, 1948-1949, p. 41.) —- In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court’s assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere "dicta," here is a memorandum prepared "[a]t the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor" by Congressman John B. Conlan. —-       The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath "invades appellant’s freedom of belief and religion."       The Court declared in Torcaso that the "no establishment" clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief.  Actually, the Court in Torcaso rested its decision on "free exercise" grounds, not the "Establishment Clause." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.       The Court stated:         We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to "profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11       Footnote 11 concerning "religions founded on different beliefs" contains the Court’s citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states         Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.       It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.       The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.       The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society’s application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.       The Court Stated,         The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a "church" or a "religious society" . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since "religious" and "worship" require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as "a religious corporation or society" . . . .       It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the "no-establishment" clause of the First Amendment. —- Other Justices have reflected back on the Torcaso opinion and confirmed our analysis.

  In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961), we did indeed refer to "SECULAR HUMANISM" as a "religio[n]."   Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) note 6 Justice Harlan summed it all up:   [Footnote 8] This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized "religions" exist that "do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God," Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, e. g., "Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, SECULAR HUMANISM and others." Ibid. See also Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957); 2 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; J. Archer, Faiths Men Live By 120-138, 254-313 (2d ed. revised by Purinton 1958); Stokes & Pfeffer, supra, n. 3, at 560.   Welsh v. United States 398 U.S. 333 (1970) note 8 But many who favor a secularist "separation of church and state" will contend that fundamentalists invented the idea that Humanism is a religion. Like most Americans, these secularists do not understand the legal issues involved here. The Humanist-dominated Court is permitting Secular Humanists to have their cake and eat it too. Secular Humanism is a religion "for Free Exercise Clause purposes." The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Tax Exemption. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. The Torcaso quote cited the cases. Conscientious Objection. Even though Congress originally granted conscientious objector status only to … read more »

Response:

20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity

Question:

"Jack Zwick" <jzwi…@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:xtMre.4553$jX6.2963@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net… > Alias wrote: >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwi…@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:f7Jre.4446$NX4.1664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net… >>>>NumbNuts (burn you cocksucker) wrote: >> Charming. > Hey, thats YOU Bubba. An EXACT reflection of you in the Mirror.

Your opinion. > Deal with it.  WE have to on a daily basis.

Fuck off. > I know it’s unpleasant to see yourself as you truely are, BUT the truth > hurts sometimes.

Awwww, I am so hurt!   Maybe you can ask yourself the hard question. > Mainly,  WHY you work so hard at being such a total asshole jerk-off.

Fuck off. > As I said before, that’s YOU Bubba. DEAL with it.

I have no problem dealing with myself. You, however, seem to have a problem with me so you are the one that has to "get over it" and "live with it" and all the other cliches you can muster. Oh, and fuck off. Alias

Response:

"Cactus Jammies" <n…@joshuatree.nemor> wrote in message

news:aNMre.61867$9A2.54409@edtnps89… > yay mom! I can see while Alan is so entranced with you!  you are such a > mom!  I vote for Mom!

Yeah, you’re another one that enjoys it when someone lies and insults people. So, you, too, can just fuck off. Alias – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> cactus jammies > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > "Mom" <m…@nospamplease.net> wrote ….. >> Good post Jack but I have wonder why people constantly give Michael Cody >> the time of day???? I checked the archives in in the buddhist newsgroups >> and they can’t stand him anymore than we can. He is an antoginizer. He is >> worse than any Bible thumper alive. Feeding him is the worst thing we can >> do. I personally gave up arguing with him long ago. He’s an idiot. I put >> him in the same class as the Klu Klux Klan and Fred Phelps. STFU Michael. >> Keep your beliefs to yourself  B O W L I N G B A L L >> head……………..and get a life. Quit feeding the idiot. >> Mom

Response:

Re: 20 Reasons to Abandon Alias…………..   Group: alt.support.hepatitis-c Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2005, 9:10pm From: Meling…@webtv.net (JV) LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Alias heheheheheheheehehe hahahahahahahahahahahahah hohohohohohohohohohohoho ahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Response:

Alias, you’re not running off with nurse Marmalade, are you?   Doug "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.eu> wrote in message

news:1SSre.51076$US.17842@news.ono.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Cactus Jammies" <n…@joshuatree.nemor> wrote in message > news:aNMre.61867$9A2.54409@edtnps89… >> yay mom! I can see while Alan is so entranced with you!  you are such a >> mom!  I vote for Mom! > Yeah, you’re another one that enjoys it when someone lies and insults > people. > So, you, too, can just fuck off. > Alias >> cactus jammies >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> "Mom" <m…@nospamplease.net> wrote ….. >>> Good post Jack but I have wonder why people constantly give Michael Cody >>> the time of day???? I checked the archives in in the buddhist newsgroups >>> and they can’t stand him anymore than we can. He is an antoginizer. He >>> is worse than any Bible thumper alive. Feeding him is the worst thing we >>> can do. I personally gave up arguing with him long ago. He’s an idiot. I >>> put him in the same class as the Klu Klux Klan and Fred Phelps. STFU >>> Michael. Keep your beliefs to yourself  B O W L I N G B A L L >>> head……………..and get a life. Quit feeding the idiot. >>> Mom

Response:

If I’d have known you would mention both their names in the same sentence, I wouldn’t have said anything about Marmelade’s wedding. Obviously, you don’t know Marmelade.  They aren’t the same kind of person in any way. Elmo (pissed off) http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/DocElmosHepFile http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/TheFamilyAlbum

Response:

so now I have to adjust my stupidity filter again.  how pathetic.  what a pain in the ass. cactus jammies ////////////////////// <elmoemer…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:20294-42B16B9A-1@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> If I’d have known you would mention both their names in the same > sentence, I wouldn’t have said anything about Marmelade’s wedding. > Obviously, you don’t know Marmelade.  They aren’t the same kind of > person in any way. > Elmo > (pissed off) > http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/DocElmosHepFile > http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/TheFamilyAlbum

Response:

And, Doug, I’ll give you the same advice I gave Russ……Don’t piss off the cook.  You never know what you’ll be eating if you do.   Elmo ////////// so now I have to adjust my stupidity filter again. how pathetic. what a pain in the ass. cactus jammies ////////////////////// <elmoemer…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:20294-42B16B9A-1@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net… If I’d have known you would mention both their names in the same sentence, I wouldn’t have said anything about Marmelade’s wedding. Obviously, you don’t know Marmelade. They aren’t the same kind of person in any way. Elmo (pissed off) http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/DocElmosHepFile http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/TheFamilyAlbum

Response:

Fuck off, "mom". Alias "Mom" <m…@nospamplease.net> wrote in message

news:1tudnfqNyaF6GDLfRVn-gQ@adelphia.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.eu> wrote in message > news:LNJre.44911$dr.15787@news.ono.com… >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwi…@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:f7Jre.4446$NX4.1664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net… >>>> NumbNuts (burn you cocksucker) wrote: >> Charming. >> Alias >>> Dear: >>> [ ] Clueless Newbie   [ ] Lamer         [ ] Flamer >>> [ ] Loser             [ ] Spammer       [ ] Troller >>> [ ] "Me too" er       [ ] Pervert       [ ] Geek >>> [ ] Freak             [ ] Nerd          [ ] Elvis >>> [ ] Racist            [ ] Fed           [ ] Freak >>> [ ] Fundamentalist    [ ] Satanist      [ ] Homeopath >>> [ ] Unbearably self-righteous person >>> [X] ALL of the above >>> I took exception to your recent: >>> [ ] Email   [X] Post to alt.support.hepatitis-c. >>>                               (newsgroup) >>> It was (check all that apply): >>> [X] Lame           [ ] Stupid         [ ] Abusive >>> [ ] Clueless       [X] Idiotic        [ ] Brain-damaged >>> [ ] Imbecilic      [X] Arrogant       [ ] Malevolent >>> [ ] Contemptible   [ ] Libelous       [ ] Ignorant >>> [ ] Clueless       [ ] Stupid         [ ] Fundamentalist >>> [ ] Boring         [ ] Dim            [X] Cowardly >>> [ ] Deceitful      [ ] Demented       [X] Self-righteous >>> [ ] Crazy          [ ] Weird          [ ] Hypocritical >>> [ ] Loathsome      [ ] Satanic        [ ] Despicable >>> [ ] Belligerent    [ ] Mind-numbing   [ ] Maladroit >>> [X] Much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable. >>> Your attention is drawn to the fact that: >>> [ ] You posted what should have been emailed >>> [ ] You obviously don’t know how to read your newsgroups line >>> [ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup >>> [ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others >>> [ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others >>> [ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group >>> [ ] You don’t know which group to post in >>> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting >>> [ ] You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups >>> [ ] I don’t like your tone of voice >>> [ ] What you posted has been done before. >>> [ ] Not only that, it was also done better the last time. >>> [ ] You quoted an *entire* post in your reply >>> [ ] You started a long, stupid thread >>> [ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread >>> [X] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it >>> [ ] You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam >>> [ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in alt.test >>> [ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message >>> [X] You posted low-IQ flamebait >>> [X] You posted a blatantly obvious troll >>> [ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll >>> [ ] You said "me too" to something >>> [ ] You make no sense >>> [ ] Your sig/alias is dreadful >>> [X] You must have spent your life in a skinner box to be this clueless. >>> [ ] You posted a phone-sex ad >>> [ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme >>> [ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal >>> [ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable.  Each >>>            line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, >>> making it hard to read. >>> [ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OwL >>> [ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don’t even own a TRS-80 >>> [ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON >>> [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup. >>> [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet. >>> [X] You are a loser. >>> [X] This has been pointed out to you before. >>> [X] You appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed >>>    on general principles. >>> It is recommended that you: >>> [X] Get a clue >>> [X] Get a life >>> [X] Go away >>> [X] Grow up >>> [X] Play Hide and go fuck yourself >>> [ ] Never post again >>> [ ] Read every newsgroup you posted to for a week >>> [ ] stop reading Usenet news and get a life >>> [ ] stop sending Email and get a life >>> [ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it >>> [X] Have your medication adjusted >>> [X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor >>> [ ] find a volcano and throw yourself in >>> [X] get a gun and shoot yourself >>> [ ] Actually post something relevant >>> [ ] Read the FAQ >>> [ ] stick to FidoNet and come back when you’ve grown up >>> [X] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup >>> [ ] consume excrement >>> [X] consume excrement and thus expire >>> [ ] Post your tests to alt.test/misc.test >>> [ ] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on >>> [ ] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you’re doing >>> In Closing, I’d Like to Say: >>> [ ] You need to seek psychiatric help >>> [ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else >>> [ ] *plonk* >>> [ ] Learn how to post or get off the usenet >>> [ ] You are so clueless that I didn’t even bother filling in this form. >>> [ ] You’re a FUCKTARD >>> [ ] You’re just plain fucked in the Head >>> [ ] Most of the above >>> [ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above >>> [X] ALL of the above >>> ————————end "standardized form"————————- >>> P.S.: >>> You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, >>> deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, >>> opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, >>> racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, >>> imbecilic, >>> insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, >>> conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, >>> spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, >>> evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, >>> paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, >>> diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, >>> dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, >>> unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, >>> mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, >>> socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good. > Good post Jack but I have wonder why people constantly give Michael Cody > the time of day???? I checked the archives in in the buddhist newsgroups > and they can’t stand him anymore than we can. He is an antoginizer. He is > worse than any Bible thumper alive. Feeding him is the worst thing we can > do. I personally gave up arguing with him long ago. He’s an idiot. I put > him in the same class as the Klu Klux Klan and Fred Phelps. STFU Michael. > Keep your beliefs to yourself  B O W L I N G B A L L > head……………..and get a life. Quit feeding the idiot. > Mom

Response:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Alias  heheheheheheheehehe hahahahahahahahahahahahah hohohohohohohohohohohoho ahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Response:

yay mom! I can see while Alan is so entranced with you!  you are such a mom!  I vote for Mom! cactus jammies ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Mom" <m…@nospamplease.net> wrote ….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Good post Jack but I have wonder why people constantly give Michael Cody > the time of day???? I checked the archives in in the buddhist newsgroups > and they can’t stand him anymore than we can. He is an antoginizer. He is > worse than any Bible thumper alive. Feeding him is the worst thing we can > do. I personally gave up arguing with him long ago. He’s an idiot. I put > him in the same class as the Klu Klux Klan and Fred Phelps. STFU Michael. > Keep your beliefs to yourself  B O W L I N G B A L L > head……………..and get a life. Quit feeding the idiot. > Mom

Response:

Alias wrote: > "Jack Zwick" <jzwi…@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:f7Jre.4446$NX4.1664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net… >>>NumbNuts (burn you cocksucker) wrote: > Charming.

Hey, thats YOU Bubba. An EXACT reflection of you in the Mirror. Deal with it.  WE have to on a daily basis. I know it’s unpleasant to see yourself as you truely are, BUT the truth hurts sometimes.     Maybe you can ask yourself the hard question. Mainly,  WHY you work so hard at being such a total asshole jerk-off. As I said before, that’s YOU Bubba. DEAL with it.

Response:

"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.eu> wrote in message

news:LNJre.44911$dr.15787@news.ono.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Jack Zwick" <jzwi…@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:f7Jre.4446$NX4.1664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net… >>> NumbNuts (burn you cocksucker) wrote: > Charming. > Alias >> Dear: >> [ ] Clueless Newbie   [ ] Lamer         [ ] Flamer >> [ ] Loser             [ ] Spammer       [ ] Troller >> [ ] "Me too" er       [ ] Pervert       [ ] Geek >> [ ] Freak             [ ] Nerd          [ ] Elvis >> [ ] Racist            [ ] Fed           [ ] Freak >> [ ] Fundamentalist    [ ] Satanist      [ ] Homeopath >> [ ] Unbearably self-righteous person >> [X] ALL of the above >> I took exception to your recent: >> [ ] Email   [X] Post to alt.support.hepatitis-c. >>                               (newsgroup) >> It was (check all that apply): >> [X] Lame           [ ] Stupid         [ ] Abusive >> [ ] Clueless       [X] Idiotic        [ ] Brain-damaged >> [ ] Imbecilic      [X] Arrogant       [ ] Malevolent >> [ ] Contemptible   [ ] Libelous       [ ] Ignorant >> [ ] Clueless       [ ] Stupid         [ ] Fundamentalist >> [ ] Boring         [ ] Dim            [X] Cowardly >> [ ] Deceitful      [ ] Demented       [X] Self-righteous >> [ ] Crazy          [ ] Weird          [ ] Hypocritical >> [ ] Loathsome      [ ] Satanic        [ ] Despicable >> [ ] Belligerent    [ ] Mind-numbing   [ ] Maladroit >> [X] Much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable. >> Your attention is drawn to the fact that: >> [ ] You posted what should have been emailed >> [ ] You obviously don’t know how to read your newsgroups line >> [ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup >> [ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others >> [ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others >> [ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group >> [ ] You don’t know which group to post in >> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting >> [ ] You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups >> [ ] I don’t like your tone of voice >> [ ] What you posted has been done before. >> [ ] Not only that, it was also done better the last time. >> [ ] You quoted an *entire* post in your reply >> [ ] You started a long, stupid thread >> [ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread >> [X] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it >> [ ] You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam >> [ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in alt.test >> [ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message >> [X] You posted low-IQ flamebait >> [X] You posted a blatantly obvious troll >> [ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll >> [ ] You said "me too" to something >> [ ] You make no sense >> [ ] Your sig/alias is dreadful >> [X] You must have spent your life in a skinner box to be this clueless. >> [ ] You posted a phone-sex ad >> [ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme >> [ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal >> [ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable.  Each >>            line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, >> making it hard to read. >> [ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OwL >> [ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don’t even own a TRS-80 >> [ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON >> [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup. >> [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet. >> [X] You are a loser. >> [X] This has been pointed out to you before. >> [X] You appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed >>    on general principles. >> It is recommended that you: >> [X] Get a clue >> [X] Get a life >> [X] Go away >> [X] Grow up >> [X] Play Hide and go fuck yourself >> [ ] Never post again >> [ ] Read every newsgroup you posted to for a week >> [ ] stop reading Usenet news and get a life >> [ ] stop sending Email and get a life >> [ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it >> [X] Have your medication adjusted >> [X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor >> [ ] find a volcano and throw yourself in >> [X] get a gun and shoot yourself >> [ ] Actually post something relevant >> [ ] Read the FAQ >> [ ] stick to FidoNet and come back when you’ve grown up >> [X] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup >> [ ] consume excrement >> [X] consume excrement and thus expire >> [ ] Post your tests to alt.test/misc.test >> [ ] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on >> [ ] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you’re doing >> In Closing, I’d Like to Say: >> [ ] You need to seek psychiatric help >> [ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else >> [ ] *plonk* >> [ ] Learn how to post or get off the usenet >> [ ] You are so clueless that I didn’t even bother filling in this form. >> [ ] You’re a FUCKTARD >> [ ] You’re just plain fucked in the Head >> [ ] Most of the above >> [ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above >> [X] ALL of the above >> ————————end "standardized form"————————- >> P.S.: >> You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, >> deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, >> opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, >> racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, >> insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, >> conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, >> spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, >> evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, >> paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, >> diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, >> dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, >> unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, >> mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, >> socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

Good post Jack but I have wonder why people constantly give Michael Cody the time of day???? I checked the archives in in the buddhist newsgroups and they can’t stand him anymore than we can. He is an antoginizer. He is worse than any Bible thumper alive. Feeding him is the worst thing we can do. I personally gave up arguing with him long ago. He’s an idiot. I put him in the same class as the Klu Klux Klan and Fred Phelps. STFU Michael. Keep your beliefs to yourself  B O W L I N G B A L L head……………..and get a life. Quit feeding the idiot. Mom

Response:

You’re a Christian? If so, you have my condolences. Alias "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They have never attacked my religious beliefs as you have seen fit to do. > I have never participated in the attacking of you or your beliefs or for > that matter any of the "fart" jokes. I thought I was being very polite in > my request and it was a request on my behalf. I will admit that I find > fart jokes less offensive as I do attacks on Christianity. I also don’t > think you deserve as much as you get. I have nothing against OT threads as > long as they aren’t meant to be harmful to anyone. I’m won’t get into any > kind of a flame war with you, I made my request and that was all I was > trying to do. > Dwight > Alias wrote: >> Would a good fart joke swing your thing, Dwight? How about a good tornado >> story?  Or maybe if I lie about someone who posts here and say they live >> on a "campo" filled with "turds" in a garbage bin? >> I don’t notice you asking Elmo "Fart" Emerson to lay off the lies and >> insults? Why is that, Dwight? Afraid you’ll be kicked out of the >> "family"? >> Alias >> "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote >>>Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried >>>my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your >>>Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true >>>Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing >>>Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each >>>of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, >>>please stop. >>>Dwight >>>Alias wrote: >>>>1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy >>>>who >>>>preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, >>>>not to >>>>mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time >>>>on >>>>Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear >>>>of >>>>death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how >>>>potent >>>>these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, >>>>which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. >>>>But >>>>even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal >>>>tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers >>>>still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic >>>>portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an >>>>attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to >>>>appeal >>>>to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip >>>>the >>>>flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human >>>>nature-fear and cowardice. >>>>2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were >>>>directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians >>>>routinely >>>>terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless >>>>horrors >>>>and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian >>>>lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after >>>>generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in >>>>mortal >>>>sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were >>>>trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what >>>>they >>>>were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, >>>>victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves >>>>had >>>>been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of >>>>children >>>>ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this >>>>day. >>>>As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, >>>>consider >>>>this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic >>>>children’s >>>>book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >>>>  Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a >>>> young >>>>man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two >>>>burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is >>>>difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls >>>>out >>>>of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. >>>>Is >>>>it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it >>>>is. >>>>The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is >>>>boiling >>>>and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him >>>>why he >>>>is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood >>>>boiled to >>>>do very wicked things. >>>>There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William >>>>Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >>>>  "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have >>>> found >>>>nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but >>>>on >>>>the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful >>>>classes >>>>for whose benefit it has been written." >>>>3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to >>>>cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian >>>>beliefs is >>>>far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth >>>>was >>>>immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including >>>>those >>>>who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic >>>>of >>>>using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a >>>>more >>>>accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to >>>>accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) >>>>in >>>>place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic >>>>dishonesty >>>>of Christianity. >>>>How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the >>>>most >>>>popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This >>>>"wager" >>>>holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were >>>>volitional!) >>>>than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will >>>>save >>>>"believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an >>>>appeal >>>>to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for >>>>truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual >>>>integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual >>>>belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one >>>>wonders >>>>how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to >>>>this >>>>particularly craven "wager." >>>>4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of >>>>Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to >>>>the >>>>fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of >>>>humankind’s >>>>most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps >>>>Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While >>>>there >>>>is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so >>>>terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, >>>>like >>>>frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter >>>>well: >>>>"salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." >>>>It’s >>>>difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at >>>>straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. >>>>Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the >>>>belief >>>>that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly >>>>intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and >>>>controller >>>>of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be >>>>pretty >>>>damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism >>>>much >>>>further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God >>>>directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one >>>>ignored >>>>the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine >>>>guidance, >>>>and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe >>>>that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t >>>>ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of >>>>following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps >>>>paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to >>>>God >>>>it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may >>>>have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to >>>>carry >>>>out his job orders." >>>>In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine >>>>guidance >>>>or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel >>>>worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important >>>>or >>>>cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the >>>>expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for >>>>saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster >>>>victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very >>>>difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. >>>>5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only >>>>natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have >>>>a >>>>direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so >>>>obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious >>>>terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s

… read more »

Response:

"Jack Zwick" <jzwi…@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:f7Jre.4446$NX4.1664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net… >> NumbNuts (burn you cocksucker) wrote:

Charming. Alias – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dear: > [ ] Clueless Newbie   [ ] Lamer         [ ] Flamer > [ ] Loser             [ ] Spammer       [ ] Troller > [ ] "Me too" er       [ ] Pervert       [ ] Geek > [ ] Freak             [ ] Nerd          [ ] Elvis > [ ] Racist            [ ] Fed           [ ] Freak > [ ] Fundamentalist    [ ] Satanist      [ ] Homeopath > [ ] Unbearably self-righteous person > [X] ALL of the above > I took exception to your recent: > [ ] Email   [X] Post to alt.support.hepatitis-c. >                               (newsgroup) > It was (check all that apply): > [X] Lame           [ ] Stupid         [ ] Abusive > [ ] Clueless       [X] Idiotic        [ ] Brain-damaged > [ ] Imbecilic      [X] Arrogant       [ ] Malevolent > [ ] Contemptible   [ ] Libelous       [ ] Ignorant > [ ] Clueless       [ ] Stupid         [ ] Fundamentalist > [ ] Boring         [ ] Dim            [X] Cowardly > [ ] Deceitful      [ ] Demented       [X] Self-righteous > [ ] Crazy          [ ] Weird          [ ] Hypocritical > [ ] Loathsome      [ ] Satanic        [ ] Despicable > [ ] Belligerent    [ ] Mind-numbing   [ ] Maladroit > [X] Much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable. > Your attention is drawn to the fact that: > [ ] You posted what should have been emailed > [ ] You obviously don’t know how to read your newsgroups line > [ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup > [ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others > [ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others > [ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group > [ ] You don’t know which group to post in > [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting > [ ] You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups > [ ] I don’t like your tone of voice > [ ] What you posted has been done before. > [ ] Not only that, it was also done better the last time. > [ ] You quoted an *entire* post in your reply > [ ] You started a long, stupid thread > [ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread > [X] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it > [ ] You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam > [ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in alt.test > [ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message > [X] You posted low-IQ flamebait > [X] You posted a blatantly obvious troll > [ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll > [ ] You said "me too" to something > [ ] You make no sense > [ ] Your sig/alias is dreadful > [X] You must have spent your life in a skinner box to be this clueless. > [ ] You posted a phone-sex ad > [ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme > [ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal > [ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable.  Each >            line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, > making it hard to read. > [ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OwL > [ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don’t even own a TRS-80 > [ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON > [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup. > [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet. > [X] You are a loser. > [X] This has been pointed out to you before. > [X] You appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed >    on general principles. > It is recommended that you: > [X] Get a clue > [X] Get a life > [X] Go away > [X] Grow up > [X] Play Hide and go fuck yourself > [ ] Never post again > [ ] Read every newsgroup you posted to for a week > [ ] stop reading Usenet news and get a life > [ ] stop sending Email and get a life > [ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it > [X] Have your medication adjusted > [X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor > [ ] find a volcano and throw yourself in > [X] get a gun and shoot yourself > [ ] Actually post something relevant > [ ] Read the FAQ > [ ] stick to FidoNet and come back when you’ve grown up > [X] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup > [ ] consume excrement > [X] consume excrement and thus expire > [ ] Post your tests to alt.test/misc.test > [ ] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on > [ ] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you’re doing > In Closing, I’d Like to Say: > [ ] You need to seek psychiatric help > [ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else > [ ] *plonk* > [ ] Learn how to post or get off the usenet > [ ] You are so clueless that I didn’t even bother filling in this form. > [ ] You’re a FUCKTARD > [ ] You’re just plain fucked in the Head > [ ] Most of the above > [ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above > [X] ALL of the above > ————————end "standardized form"————————- > P.S.: > You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, > deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, > opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, > racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, > insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, > conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, > spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, > evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, > paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, > diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, > dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, > unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, > mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, > socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

Response:

> NumbNuts (burn you cocksucker) wrote:

Dear:  [ ] Clueless Newbie   [ ] Lamer         [ ] Flamer  [ ] Loser             [ ] Spammer       [ ] Troller  [ ] "Me too" er       [ ] Pervert       [ ] Geek  [ ] Freak             [ ] Nerd          [ ] Elvis  [ ] Racist            [ ] Fed           [ ] Freak  [ ] Fundamentalist    [ ] Satanist      [ ] Homeopath  [ ] Unbearably self-righteous person  [X] ALL of the above I took exception to your recent:  [ ] Email   [X] Post to alt.support.hepatitis-c.                                (newsgroup) It was (check all that apply):  [X] Lame           [ ] Stupid         [ ] Abusive  [ ] Clueless       [X] Idiotic        [ ] Brain-damaged  [ ] Imbecilic      [X] Arrogant       [ ] Malevolent  [ ] Contemptible   [ ] Libelous       [ ] Ignorant  [ ] Clueless       [ ] Stupid         [ ] Fundamentalist  [ ] Boring         [ ] Dim            [X] Cowardly  [ ] Deceitful      [ ] Demented       [X] Self-righteous  [ ] Crazy          [ ] Weird          [ ] Hypocritical  [ ] Loathsome      [ ] Satanic        [ ] Despicable  [ ] Belligerent    [ ] Mind-numbing   [ ] Maladroit  [X] Much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable.  Your attention is drawn to the fact that:  [ ] You posted what should have been emailed  [ ] You obviously don’t know how to read your newsgroups line  [ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup  [ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others  [ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others  [ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group  [ ] You don’t know which group to post in  [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting  [ ] You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups  [ ] I don’t like your tone of voice  [ ] What you posted has been done before.  [ ] Not only that, it was also done better the last time.  [ ] You quoted an *entire* post in your reply  [ ] You started a long, stupid thread  [ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread  [X] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it  [ ] You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam  [ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in alt.test  [ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message  [X] You posted low-IQ flamebait  [X] You posted a blatantly obvious troll  [ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll  [ ] You said "me too" to something  [ ] You make no sense  [ ] Your sig/alias is dreadful  [X] You must have spent your life in a skinner box to be this clueless.  [ ] You posted a phone-sex ad  [ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme  [ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal  [ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable.  Each             line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, making it hard to read.  [ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OwL  [ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don’t even own a TRS-80  [ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON  [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup.  [ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet.  [X] You are a loser.  [X] This has been pointed out to you before.  [X] You appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed     on general principles. It is recommended that you:  [X] Get a clue  [X] Get a life  [X] Go away  [X] Grow up  [X] Play Hide and go fuck yourself  [ ] Never post again  [ ] Read every newsgroup you posted to for a week  [ ] stop reading Usenet news and get a life  [ ] stop sending Email and get a life  [ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it  [X] Have your medication adjusted  [X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor  [ ] find a volcano and throw yourself in  [X] get a gun and shoot yourself  [ ] Actually post something relevant  [ ] Read the FAQ  [ ] stick to FidoNet and come back when you’ve grown up  [X] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup  [ ] consume excrement  [X] consume excrement and thus expire  [ ] Post your tests to alt.test/misc.test  [ ] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on  [ ] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you’re doing  In Closing, I’d Like to Say:  [ ] You need to seek psychiatric help  [ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else  [ ] *plonk*  [ ] Learn how to post or get off the usenet  [ ] You are so clueless that I didn’t even bother filling in this form.  [ ] You’re a FUCKTARD  [ ] You’re just plain fucked in the Head  [ ] Most of the above  [ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above  [X] ALL of the above ————————end "standardized form"————————- P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

Response:

Alias, this doesn’t have anything to do with Elmo, but it has everything to do with Christianity.  I don’t understand why you’re trying to start trouble.  You ask us to respect your religious beliefs, and for the most part, we do.  I know I have, and I’m asking you to respect mine. "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.eu> wrote in message

news:N%Cre.44836$dr.12711@news.ono.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Would a good fart joke swing your thing, Dwight? How about a good tornado > story?  Or maybe if I lie about someone who posts here and say they live > on a "campo" filled with "turds" in a garbage bin? > I don’t notice you asking Elmo "Fart" Emerson to lay off the lies and > insults? Why is that, Dwight? Afraid you’ll be kicked out of the "family"? > Alias > "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote >> Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried >> my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your >> Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true >> Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing >> Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each >> of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, >> please stop. >> Dwight >> Alias wrote: >>> 1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy >>> who >>> preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, >>> not to >>> mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time >>> on >>> Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear >>> of >>> death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how >>> potent >>> these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, >>> which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. >>> But >>> even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal >>> tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers >>> still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic >>> portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an >>> attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to >>> appeal >>> to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip >>> the >>> flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human >>> nature-fear and cowardice. >>> 2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were >>> directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians >>> routinely >>> terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless >>> horrors >>> and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian >>> lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after >>> generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in >>> mortal >>> sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were >>> trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what >>> they >>> were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, >>> victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves >>> had >>> been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of >>> children >>> ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this >>> day. >>> As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, >>> consider >>> this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic >>> children’s >>> book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >>>   Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a >>> young >>> man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two >>> burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is >>> difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls >>> out >>> of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. >>> Is >>> it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it >>> is. >>> The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is >>> boiling >>> and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him >>> why he >>> is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood >>> boiled to >>> do very wicked things. >>> There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William >>> Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >>>   "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have >>> found >>> nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but >>> on >>> the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful >>> classes >>> for whose benefit it has been written." >>> 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to >>> cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian >>> beliefs is >>> far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth >>> was >>> immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including >>> those >>> who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic >>> of >>> using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a >>> more >>> accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to >>> accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) >>> in >>> place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic >>> dishonesty >>> of Christianity. >>> How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the >>> most >>> popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This >>> "wager" >>> holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were >>> volitional!) >>> than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will >>> save >>> "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an >>> appeal >>> to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for >>> truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual >>> integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual >>> belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one >>> wonders >>> how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to >>> this >>> particularly craven "wager." >>> 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of >>> Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to >>> the >>> fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of >>> humankind’s >>> most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps >>> Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While >>> there >>> is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so >>> terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, >>> like >>> frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter >>> well: >>> "salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." >>> It’s >>> difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at >>> straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. >>> Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the >>> belief >>> that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly >>> intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and >>> controller >>> of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be >>> pretty >>> damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism >>> much >>> further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God >>> directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one >>> ignored >>> the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine >>> guidance, >>> and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe >>> that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t >>> ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of >>> following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps >>> paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to >>> God >>> it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may >>> have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to >>> carry >>> out his job orders." >>> In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine >>> guidance >>> or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel >>> worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important >>> or >>> cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the >>> expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for >>> saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster >>> victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very >>> difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. >>> 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only >>> natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have >>> a >>> direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so >>> obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious >>> terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s >>> people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while >>> nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic >>> Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This >>> sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel >>> superior to those who are not "God’s people." >>> That many competing religions

… read more »

Response:

Very well said.  I agree. "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote in message

news:nbCre.908$aa2.420@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried > my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your > Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true > Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing > Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each > of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, > please stop. > Dwight > Alias wrote: >> 1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy >> who >> preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not >> to >> mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time >> on >> Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear of >> death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent >> these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, >> which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. >> But >> even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal >> tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers >> still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic >> portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an >> attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to >> appeal >> to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the >> flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human >> nature-fear and cowardice. >> 2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were >> directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians >> routinely >> terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless >> horrors >> and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian >> lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after >> generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal >> sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were >> trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what >> they >> were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, >> victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves >> had >> been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of >> children >> ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this >> day. >> As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, >> consider >> this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic >> children’s >> book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >>   Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a >> young >> man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two >> burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is >> difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls >> out >> of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. >> Is >> it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it >> is. >> The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is >> boiling >> and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why >> he >> is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled >> to >> do very wicked things. >> There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William >> Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >>   "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have >> found >> nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but >> on >> the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful >> classes >> for whose benefit it has been written." >> 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to >> cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs >> is >> far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth >> was >> immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including >> those >> who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of >> using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a more >> accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to >> accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) >> in >> place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic >> dishonesty >> of Christianity. >> How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most >> popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This >> "wager" >> holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) >> than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will >> save >> "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an >> appeal >> to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for >> truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual >> integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual >> belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders >> how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this >> particularly craven "wager." >> 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of >> Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to >> the >> fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of humankind’s >> most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps >> Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While >> there >> is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so >> terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, >> like >> frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter well: >> "salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." >> It’s >> difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at >> straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. >> Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the >> belief >> that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly >> intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and >> controller >> of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be >> pretty >> damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism >> much >> further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God >> directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one >> ignored >> the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine guidance, >> and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe >> that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t >> ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of >> following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps >> paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to >> God >> it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may >> have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to >> carry >> out his job orders." >> In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine >> guidance >> or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel >> worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important >> or >> cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the >> expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for >> saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster >> victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very >> difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. >> 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only >> natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have >> a >> direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so >> obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious >> terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s >> people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while >> nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic >> Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This >> sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel >> superior to those who are not "God’s people." >> That many competing religions with contradictory beliefs make the same >> claim >> seems not to matter at all to the members of the various sects that claim >> to >> be the only carriers of "the true faith." The carnage that results when >> two >> competing sects of "God’s people" collide-as in Ireland and >> Palestine-would >> be quite amusing but for the suffering it causes. >> 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to >> have >> the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many >> cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no >> compunction about using force and coercion to enforce "God’s Will" (which >> they, of course, interpret and understand). Given that they believe (or >> pretend) that they’re receiving orders from the Almighty (who would cast >> them into hell should they disobey), it’s little wonder that they feel no >> reluctance, and in

… read more »

Response:

Good point Juanita.I do agree with nearly everything that Cody has to say about this subject(although I am Agnostic not Atheist),but as you say this is not the place for it. Peace & SVR, BrianD "JV" <Meling…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:24265-42AF080F-195@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Actually there are some real good news groups for this religious debate > stuff. I think you could blow their socks off Cody. > Come on now you know this is a Hep C new group, about life, living with > Hepc, dealing with the issues like life on tx, and life after tx. I just > hope these posts don’t start a war and no one falls into your trap. > I do think there is a appropriate news group for you on the religious > debates. > Not a interesting topic for this group. >                                                Juanita

Response:

Time to stop being so liberal with the wing nuts, Dwight.  It’s getting under your collar.  Do you need help figuring out how to auto trash with your mail program? The only way I manage to see the RNA’s screeches is if someone like you comments on them.  Although I am not a Man of The Book or any other such diversion in my personal life, I only make skinny fun of the zealots of any sort from time to time. A reason that seems to work on those who try to recruit door to door for Jesus, is that my mind is too active to focus on a Book.  I have neighbours praying for me at their fellowship meetings across the street, in the Church of the Clear Mountain Air.  Whatever floats  their boats at least they disguised their come-on by asking me if I minded..  So long as they don’t expect me to sit around and do bible study or what have you.  It has taken me now almost seven months to get to this state of relative bliss on the list.  I must admit I top loaded may participation here with the treatment routines, with many many questions and some things already understood, like the need for control over stressors in your life. Like another RNA just what I don’t need. So I have double sentries on my sanities, as I see them.  It is wise, paid off for me, and IS very boy scout. om Cactus Jammies ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote in message

news:K1Fre.1075$G55.723@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They have never attacked my religious beliefs as you have seen fit to do. > I have never participated in the attacking of you or your beliefs or for > that matter any of the "fart" jokes. I thought I was being very polite in > my request and it was a request on my behalf. I will admit that I find > fart jokes less offensive as I do attacks on Christianity. I also don’t > think you deserve as much as you get. I have nothing against OT threads as > long as they aren’t meant to be harmful to anyone. I’m won’t get into any > kind of a flame war with you, I made my request and that was all I was > trying to do. > Dwight > Alias wrote: >> Would a good fart joke swing your thing, Dwight? How about a good tornado >> story?  Or maybe if I lie about someone who posts here and say they live >> on a "campo" filled with "turds" in a garbage bin? >> I don’t notice you asking Elmo "Fart" Emerson to lay off the lies and >> insults? Why is that, Dwight? Afraid you’ll be kicked out of the >> "family"? >> Alias >> "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote >>>Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried >>>my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your >>>Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true >>>Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing >>>Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each >>>of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, >>>please stop. >>>Dwight >>>Alias wrote: >>>>1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy >>>>who >>>>preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, >>>>not to >>>>mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time >>>>on >>>>Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear >>>>of >>>>death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how >>>>potent >>>>these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, >>>>which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. >>>>But >>>>even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal >>>>tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers >>>>still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic >>>>portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an >>>>attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to >>>>appeal >>>>to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip >>>>the >>>>flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human >>>>nature-fear and cowardice. >>>>2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were >>>>directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians >>>>routinely >>>>terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless >>>>horrors >>>>and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian >>>>lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after >>>>generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in >>>>mortal >>>>sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were >>>>trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what >>>>they >>>>were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, >>>>victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves >>>>had >>>>been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of >>>>children >>>>ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this >>>>day. >>>>As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, >>>>consider >>>>this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic >>>>children’s >>>>book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >>>>  Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a >>>> young >>>>man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two >>>>burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is >>>>difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls >>>>out >>>>of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. >>>>Is >>>>it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it >>>>is. >>>>The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is >>>>boiling >>>>and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him >>>>why he >>>>is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood >>>>boiled to >>>>do very wicked things. >>>>There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William >>>>Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >>>>  "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have >>>> found >>>>nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but >>>>on >>>>the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful >>>>classes >>>>for whose benefit it has been written." >>>>3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to >>>>cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian >>>>beliefs is >>>>far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth >>>>was >>>>immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including >>>>those >>>>who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic >>>>of >>>>using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a >>>>more >>>>accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to >>>>accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) >>>>in >>>>place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic >>>>dishonesty >>>>of Christianity. >>>>How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the >>>>most >>>>popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This >>>>"wager" >>>>holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were >>>>volitional!) >>>>than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will >>>>save >>>>"believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an >>>>appeal >>>>to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for >>>>truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual >>>>integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual >>>>belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one >>>>wonders >>>>how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to >>>>this >>>>particularly craven "wager." >>>>4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of >>>>Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to >>>>the >>>>fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of >>>>humankind’s >>>>most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps >>>>Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While >>>>there >>>>is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so >>>>terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, >>>>like >>>>frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter >>>>well: >>>>"salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." >>>>It’s >>>>difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at >>>>straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. >>>>Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the >>>>belief >>>>that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly >>>>intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and >>>>controller >>>>of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be >>>>pretty >>>>damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism >>>>much >>>>further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God >>>>directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one >>>>ignored >>>>the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine >>>>guidance, >>>>and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe >>>>that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t >>>>ignore

… read more »

Response:

Actually there are some real good news groups for this religious debate stuff. I think you could blow their socks off Cody. Come on now you know this is a Hep C new group, about life, living with Hepc, dealing with the issues like life on tx, and life after tx. I just hope these posts don’t start a war and no one falls into your trap. I do think there is a appropriate news group for you on the religious debates. Not a interesting topic for this group.                                                 Juanita

Response:

Would a good fart joke swing your thing, Juanita? How about a good tornado story?  Or maybe if I lie about someone who posts here and say they live on a "campo" filled with "turds" in a garbage bin? I don’t notice you asking Elmo "Fart" Emerson to lay off the lies and insults? Why is that, Juanita? Afraid you’ll be kicked out of the "family"? Alias "JV" <Meling…@webtv.net> wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Actually there are some real good news groups for this religious debate > stuff. I think you could blow their socks off Cody. > Come on now you know this is a Hep C new group, about life, living with > Hepc, dealing with the issues like life on tx, and life after tx. I just > hope these posts don’t start a war and no one falls into your trap. > I do think there is a appropriate news group for you on the religious > debates. > Not a interesting topic for this group. >                                                Juanita

Response:

They have never attacked my religious beliefs as you have seen fit to do. I have never participated in the attacking of you or your beliefs or for that matter any of the "fart" jokes. I thought I was being very polite in my request and it was a request on my behalf. I will admit that I find fart jokes less offensive as I do attacks on Christianity. I also don’t think you deserve as much as you get. I have nothing against OT threads as long as they aren’t meant to be harmful to anyone. I’m won’t get into any kind of a flame war with you, I made my request and that was all I was trying to do. Dwight – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Alias wrote: > Would a good fart joke swing your thing, Dwight? How about a good tornado > story?  Or maybe if I lie about someone who posts here and say they live on > a "campo" filled with "turds" in a garbage bin? > I don’t notice you asking Elmo "Fart" Emerson to lay off the lies and > insults? Why is that, Dwight? Afraid you’ll be kicked out of the "family"? > Alias > "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote >>Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried >>my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your >>Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true >>Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing >>Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each >>of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, >>please stop. >>Dwight >>Alias wrote: >>>1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy >>>who >>>preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not >>>to >>>mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time >>>on >>>Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear of >>>death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent >>>these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, >>>which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. >>>But >>>even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal >>>tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers >>>still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic >>>portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an >>>attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to >>>appeal >>>to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the >>>flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human >>>nature-fear and cowardice. >>>2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were >>>directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians >>>routinely >>>terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless >>>horrors >>>and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian >>>lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after >>>generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal >>>sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were >>>trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what >>>they >>>were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, >>>victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves >>>had >>>been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of >>>children >>>ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this >>>day. >>>As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, >>>consider >>>this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic >>>children’s >>>book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >>>  Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a >>>young >>>man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two >>>burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is >>>difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls >>>out >>>of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. >>>Is >>>it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it >>>is. >>>The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is >>>boiling >>>and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why >>>he >>>is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled >>>to >>>do very wicked things. >>>There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William >>>Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >>>  "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have >>>found >>>nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but >>>on >>>the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful >>>classes >>>for whose benefit it has been written." >>>3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to >>>cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs >>>is >>>far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth >>>was >>>immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including >>>those >>>who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of >>>using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a more >>>accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to >>>accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) >>>in >>>place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic >>>dishonesty >>>of Christianity. >>>How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most >>>popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This >>>"wager" >>>holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) >>>than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will >>>save >>>"believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an >>>appeal >>>to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for >>>truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual >>>integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual >>>belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders >>>how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this >>>particularly craven "wager." >>>4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of >>>Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to >>>the >>>fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of humankind’s >>>most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps >>>Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While >>>there >>>is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so >>>terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, >>>like >>>frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter well: >>>"salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." >>>It’s >>>difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at >>>straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. >>>Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the >>>belief >>>that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly >>>intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and >>>controller >>>of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be >>>pretty >>>damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism >>>much >>>further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God >>>directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one >>>ignored >>>the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine guidance, >>>and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe >>>that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t >>>ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of >>>following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps >>>paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to >>>God >>>it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may >>>have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to >>>carry >>>out his job orders." >>>In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine >>>guidance >>>or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel >>>worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important >>>or >>>cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the >>>expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for >>>saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster >>>victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very >>>difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. >>>5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only >>>natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have >>>a >>>direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so >>>obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious >>>terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s >>>people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while >>>nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic >>>Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This >>>sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel >>>superior to those who are not "God’s people." >>>That many

… read more »

Response:

Would a good fart joke swing your thing, Dwight? How about a good tornado story?  Or maybe if I lie about someone who posts here and say they live on a "campo" filled with "turds" in a garbage bin? I don’t notice you asking Elmo "Fart" Emerson to lay off the lies and insults? Why is that, Dwight? Afraid you’ll be kicked out of the "family"? Alias "Dwight" <Dwi…@Me.net> wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried > my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your > Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true > Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing > Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each > of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, > please stop. > Dwight > Alias wrote: >> 1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy >> who >> preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not >> to >> mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time >> on >> Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear of >> death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent >> these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, >> which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. >> But >> even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal >> tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers >> still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic >> portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an >> attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to >> appeal >> to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the >> flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human >> nature-fear and cowardice. >> 2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were >> directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians >> routinely >> terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless >> horrors >> and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian >> lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after >> generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal >> sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were >> trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what >> they >> were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, >> victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves >> had >> been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of >> children >> ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this >> day. >> As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, >> consider >> this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic >> children’s >> book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >>   Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a >> young >> man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two >> burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is >> difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls >> out >> of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. >> Is >> it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it >> is. >> The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is >> boiling >> and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why >> he >> is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled >> to >> do very wicked things. >> There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William >> Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >>   "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have >> found >> nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but >> on >> the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful >> classes >> for whose benefit it has been written." >> 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to >> cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs >> is >> far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth >> was >> immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including >> those >> who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of >> using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a more >> accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to >> accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) >> in >> place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic >> dishonesty >> of Christianity. >> How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most >> popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This >> "wager" >> holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) >> than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will >> save >> "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an >> appeal >> to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for >> truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual >> integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual >> belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders >> how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this >> particularly craven "wager." >> 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of >> Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to >> the >> fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of humankind’s >> most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps >> Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While >> there >> is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so >> terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, >> like >> frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter well: >> "salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." >> It’s >> difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at >> straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. >> Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the >> belief >> that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly >> intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and >> controller >> of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be >> pretty >> damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism >> much >> further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God >> directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one >> ignored >> the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine guidance, >> and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe >> that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t >> ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of >> following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps >> paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to >> God >> it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may >> have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to >> carry >> out his job orders." >> In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine >> guidance >> or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel >> worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important >> or >> cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the >> expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for >> saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster >> victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very >> difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. >> 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only >> natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have >> a >> direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so >> obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious >> terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s >> people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while >> nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic >> Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This >> sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel >> superior to those who are not "God’s people." >> That many competing religions with contradictory beliefs make the same >> claim >> seems not to matter at all to the members of the various sects that claim >> to >> be the only carriers of "the true faith." The carnage that results when >> two >> competing sects of "God’s people" collide-as in Ireland and >> Palestine-would >> be quite amusing but for the suffering it causes. >> 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to >> have >> the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many >> cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no >> compunction about using force and coercion to enforce "God’s

… read more »

Response:

1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy who preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not to mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time on Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear of death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. But even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to appeal to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human nature-fear and cowardice. 2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians routinely terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless horrors and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what they were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves had been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this day. As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, consider this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic children’s book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.):   Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a young man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls out of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things. There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation:   "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have found nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but on the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful classes for whose benefit it has been written." 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs is far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth was immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including those who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a more accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) in place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic dishonesty of Christianity. How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This "wager" holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will save "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an appeal to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this particularly craven "wager." 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to the fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of humankind’s most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, like frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter well: "salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." It’s difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the belief that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and controller of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be pretty damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism much further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one ignored the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine guidance, and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to God it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to carry out his job orders." In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine guidance or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important or cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have a direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel superior to those who are not "God’s people." That many competing religions with contradictory beliefs make the same claim seems not to matter at all to the members of the various sects that claim to be the only carriers of "the true faith." The carnage that results when two competing sects of "God’s people" collide-as in Ireland and Palestine-would be quite amusing but for the suffering it causes. 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to have the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no compunction about using force and coercion to enforce "God’s Will" (which they, of course, interpret and understand). Given that they believe (or pretend) that they’re receiving orders from the Almighty (who would cast them into hell should they disobey), it’s little wonder that they feel no reluctance, and in fact are eager, to intrude into the most personal aspects of the lives of nonbelievers. This is most obvious today in the area of sex, with Christians attempting to deny women the right to abortion and to mandate near-useless abstinence-only sex "education" in the public schools. It’s also obvious in the area of education, with Christians attempting to force biology teachers to teach their creation myth (but not those of Hindus, Native Americans, et al.) in place of (or as being equally valid as) the very well established theory of evolution. But the authoritarian tendencies of Christianity reach much further than this. Up until well into the 20th century in the United States and other Christian countries (notably Ireland), Christian churches pressured governments into passing laws forbidding the sale and distribution of birth control devices, and they also managed to enact laws forbidding even the description of birth control devices. This assault on free speech was part and parcel of Christianity’s shameful history of attempting to suppress "indecent" and "subversive" materials (and to throw their producers in jail or burn them alive). This anti-free speech stance of Christianity … read more »

Response:

Cody, I’ve stayed out of your religious threads until now and have tried my best to ignore them. I’m asking you to please refrain from your Christianity bashing. You are not going to shake the faith of a true Christian, just as I’m sure no one is going to change your practicing Buddhism. There are good and bad among all the people of the World, each of us must find in our own hearts what we believe in. So, once again, please stop. Dwight – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Alias wrote: > 1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy who > preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not to > mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time on > Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been-in addition to the fear of > death-fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent > these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, > which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. But > even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal > tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers > still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic > portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an > attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to appeal > to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the > flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human > nature-fear and cowardice. > 2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were > directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians routinely > terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless horrors > and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian > lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after > generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal > sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were > trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what they > were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, > victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves had > been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children > ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this > day. > As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, consider > this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic children’s > book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.): >   Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a young > man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two > burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is > difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls out > of it. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is > it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it is. > The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling > and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he > is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to > do very wicked things. > There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William > Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation: >   "I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have found > nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but on > the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful classes > for whose benefit it has been written." > 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty. The Christian appeal to fear, to > cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs is > far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity’s truth was > immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians-including those > who wrote the Gospels-would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of > using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief." ("Lip service" is a more > accurate term.) That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to > accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) in > place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic dishonesty > of Christianity. > How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most > popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal’s wager. This "wager" > holds that it’s safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) > than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will save > "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death. This is an appeal > to pure cowardice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for > truth. Instead, it’s an appeal to abandon honesty and intellectual > integrity, and to pretend that lip service is the same thing as actual > belief. If the patriarchal God of Christianity really exists, one wonders > how it would judge the cowards and hypocrites who advance and bow to this > particularly craven "wager." > 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric. The deep egocentrism of > Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to the > fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of humankind’s > most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps > Christianity’s strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While there > is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so > terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, like > frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter well: > "salvation of the soul-in plain words, the world revolves around me." It’s > difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at > straws-this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality. > Another manifestation of the extreme egotism of Christianity is the belief > that God is intimately concerned with picayune aspects of, and directly > intervenes in, the lives of individuals. If God, the creator and controller > of the universe, is vitally concerned with your sex life, you must be pretty > damned important. Many Christians take this particular form of egotism much > further and actually imagine that God has a plan for them, or that God > directly talks to, directs, or even does favors for them.(1) If one ignored > the frequent and glaring contradictions in this supposed divine guidance, > and the dead bodies sometimes left in its wake, one could almost believe > that the individuals making such claims are guided by God. But one can’t > ignore the contradictions in and the oftentimes horrible results of > following such "divine guidance." As "Agent Mulder" put it (perhaps > paraphrasing Thomas Szasz) in a 1998 X-Files episode, "When you talk to God > it’s prayer, but when God talks to you it’s schizophrenia. . . . God may > have his reasons, but he sure seems to employ a lot of psychotics to carry > out his job orders." > In less extreme cases, the insistence that one is receiving divine guidance > or special treatment from God is usually the attempt of those who feel > worthless-or helpless, adrift in an uncaring universe-to feel important or > cared for. This less sinister form of egotism is commonly found in the > expressions of disaster survivors that "God must have had a reason for > saving me" (in contrast to their less-worthy-of-life fellow disaster > victims, whom God-who controls all things-killed). Again, it’s very > difficult to see anything spiritual in such egocentricity. > 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality. It’s only > natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have a > direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so > obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious > terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s > people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while > nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic > Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This > sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel > superior to those who are not "God’s people." > That many competing religions with contradictory beliefs make the same claim > seems not to matter at all to the members of the various sects that claim to > be the only carriers of "the true faith." The carnage that results when two > competing sects of "God’s people" collide-as in Ireland and Palestine-would > be quite amusing but for the suffering it causes. > 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to have > the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many > cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no > compunction about using force and coercion to enforce "God’s Will" (which > they, of course, interpret and understand). Given that they believe (or > pretend) that they’re receiving orders from the Almighty (who would cast > them into hell should they disobey), it’s little wonder that they feel no > reluctance, and in fact are eager, to intrude into the most personal aspects > of the lives of nonbelievers. This is most obvious today in the area of sex, > with Christians attempting to deny women the right to abortion and to > mandate near-useless abstinence-only sex "education" in the public schools. > It’s also obvious in the area of education, with Christians attempting to > force biology teachers to teach their creation myth (but not those of > Hindus, Native Americans, et

… read more »

Response:

Martial Arts in the Media: Physical Zen

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Toxic Zen Story #10.8: Physical Zen: Evil Friends in the Media: Lee – Seagal, Norris; Chan – Chow, Li; Carradine – Norris, Hung; Henstridge et al – Garner, Wong; Kurosawa – Lee, many others. We also have: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"   Kung fu against the undead. "Star Wars 1-6"              Bushido and Kung Fu in space. "Lord of the Rings"          This was great until the elf                              started doing Kung Fu, and                              Bushido moves. Damn it !!! "Charlie’s Angels"           Light on the Zen in the first                              movie, now they are totally                              slow-mo Kung Fu in the second                              movie. "Matrix","Matrix Reloaded", "Matrix Revolutions I & 2"   Wo, these are purely Zen evil                              with unreal slow-mo Kung Fu. "Lara Croft – Tomb Raider"   Now (II), these are Kung Fu. "Underworld"                 Kung Fu with vampires and                              wolves. "The Rundown"                The Rock goes Zen. Duane !!! "Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2"       Good Heavens, this is like                              taking a bath in the purest                              evil and distortion of life. Must absolutely every damn movie and TV show with action scenes have a unit director that is a Zen Roshi or has his own school of Kung Fu or Karate? Doesn’t anyone see this as a problem: as a prerequisite for working in action movies, or starring in one? It’s like every movie made in Hollywood for the Summer of 2003, was either a Kung Fu flick, or was made by people sharing Zen directly (Lost In Translation), or doing Zen meditation every night after wrapping the set (Mystic River). Zen is really burning hot in Hollywood. We really should stop subsidizing that evil. Zen is the snake that bites it’s own tail. If you embrace the void and  acausality, you will find yourself later in the midst of catastrophic  emptiness saying "how’d that happen?". Under Prajnatara (Perfect Wisdom Shining Star) of India, there was a disciple named Bodhidharma (Buddha Law). Under these grandiose  names, they studied the Buddha’s teachings, after Buddhism had  traveled East to China. The Buddha foretold that Buddhism would fall  into a Hellish path in India, after the Buddha’s highest teachings had  moved on. Bodhidharma was a native of Conjeeveram, near Madras in India. He traveled from India and arrived at Ching-Ling (now  Nanking), or perhaps at Guangzhou (Canton), perhaps both. There, Bodhidharma met with the Emperor’s emissary (some say Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty, see footnote), where they discussed the Sutras. As Bodhidharma (also called Da Mo, or Ta Mo in China, and Daruma in Japan) believed in  dhyana or meditation upon the nothingness at the heart of life, and as the  Lotus Sutra had been translated into Chinese by Kumarajiva who  traveled from India a century earlier and had served the Liang Dynasty well, the  lesser and distorted teaching of dhyana/ch’an/zen was rejected by practitioners of the highest teaching, and Bodhidharma was banished from Imperial territory. As an icchantika, or incorrigible disbeliever in the Lotus Sutra, he could  not be allowed to spread his teachings in the Emperor’s domain (they  wished to live happily, you see). But by banishing him, they did not act  as bodhisattvas, to thoroughly correct his errors and not let him slip away  to corrupt others, and thusly fall into the hell of incessant sufferings  (Aviichi Hell) for countless lifetimes. Out of this single  uncompassionate act, much of the suffering of the world has come. After he was banished, Bodhidharma went to the Shaolin Monastery at Loyang, West of Kaifeng in the Henan (Honan) Province of Western China, where the Huang He (Yangtze or Yellow River) tumbles out of the break between Zhongtiao Shan (2367m) on the North and Quanbao Shan (2094m) on the South, to flood the rest of China. At the Shaolin Monastery, he widely disseminated his distorted views of Buddhism, corrupting first the Shaolin Monks and ultimately the rest of the world. Bodhidharma’s school was known as Dhyana (from the Mahayana  source), or as Ch’an in China, and eventually as Zen in Japan. It comes  to flower in many different forms, in many different places down  through the ages. Bodhidharma’s very existence is denied by the Zen community, rendering the life of their founder as itself a void. This allows no one to  be responsible, and the Zen community to walk away from the train  wreck. So let’s assume that the history is true, and hold Bodhidharma  and Zen accountable, just this once. There was surely a founder who  brought Dhyana from India, however many names he is called. Footnotes on Wu-Ti: Concerning Emperor Wu: from "The Selection of the Time – Nichiren, disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha", Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, p. 544:         ‘Those concerned about their next life would     do better to be common people in this, the Latter     Day of the Law, than be mighty rulers during the     two thousand years of the Former and Middle Days     of the Law. Why won’t people believe this? Rather     than be the chief priest of the Tendai school, it     is better to be a leper who chants Nam-myoho-     renge-kyo! As Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty said     in his vow, "I would rather be Devadatta and sink     into the hell of incessant suffering than be the     non-Buddhist sage Udraka Ramaputra."’ This reference is to a document in which Emperor Wu (464–549), the first ruler of the Liang dynasty, pledged not to follow the way of Taoism. It actually says that he would rather sink into the evil paths for a long period of time for going against Buddhism (yet nevertheless forming a bond with it) than be reborn in heaven by embracing the non-Buddhist teachings. This story appears in The Annotations on "Great Concentration and Insight." Udraka Ramaputra was a hermit and master of yogic meditation, the second teacher under whom Shakyamuni practiced. He is said to have been reborn in the highest of the four realms in the world of formlessness. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:     Wu-Ti: Born 464 , China. Died 549 , China     Pinyin Wudi  (posthumous name, or shih), personal     name (hsing-ming) Hsiao Yen , temple name (miao-     hao) (nan-liang) Kao-tsu founder and first emperor     of the Southern Liang dynasty (502-557), which     briefly held sway over South China. A great patron     of Buddhism , he helped establish that religion in     the south of China.     Wu-ti was a relative of the emperor of the     Southern Ch’i dynasty (479-502), one of the     numerous dynasties that existed in South China in     the turbulent period between the Han (206 BC-AD     220) and T’ang (618-907) dynasties. He led a     successful revolt against the Southern Ch’i after     his elder brother was put to death by the emperor.     He proclaimed himself first emperor of the Liang     dynasty in 502, and his reign proved to be longer     and more stable than that of any other southern     emperor in this period.     A devout believer, Wu-ti diligently promoted     Buddhism, preparing the first Chinese Tripitaka,     or collection of all Buddhist scripts. In 527 and     again in 529 he renounced the world and entered a     monastery. He was persuaded to reassume office     only with great difficulty. In 549 the capital was     captured by a "barbarian" general, and Wu-ti died     of starvation in a monastery. There is a hierarchy of Zen, in power and toxicity. The lesser forms of Zen pave the way in societies and cultures for the more powerful forms. Once a society or culture is corrupted, in even the tiniest way, by any form of Zen, the tendency will be to move inevitably towards greater corruption by the more powerful and toxic variants. In this way, Zen undermines everything that can be undermined in the world, leaving only that which is incorruptible (the correct practice of the Lotus Sutra). The hierarchy of Zen is as follows, in general terms: Physical Zen: All of the martial arts are based on Zen, starting     with Shaolin Kung Fu, Tai Chi, Karate, Aikido, JiuJitsu,     Judo, Kendo, Bushido, Ninjitsu, etc. Tai Chi came from     Shaolin Qigong, which also led to Acupuncture,     Acupressure and Falun Gong. As the chaos in society     grows, people need to feel they can protect themselves and     their loved ones, and in this way they are corrupted further. Christian Zen, Jewish Zen, Hindu Zen, Islamic Zen: These are     basically mixtures, wherein the monotheist believer in a     deity, feels they can practice Zen meditation without a     problem, since it is not theistic. While this reasoning is true,     it ignores the absolutely overwhelming corruption produced     by Zen, which will ultimately undermine their belief system     and every facet of their life, by bringing all of the negatives     in the Zen adherent’s’s daily life and environment to the     forefront, with increasing amplification and psychotic     effect. Nuremberg Zen: The widespread belief by a population, that     the purpose of the Buddha’s advent in the world was to     teach Zen: that Zen is Buddhism. This is, of course, an     absolutely distorted view of the Buddha’s life and teachings.     Shakyamuni made it transparently clear, at the very end of     his life in the Nirvana

… read more »

Response:

Toxic Zen Story #10.8: Physical Zen: Evil Friends in the Media: Lee – Seagal, Norris; Chan – Chow, Li; Carradine – Norris, Hung; Henstridge et al – Garner, Wong; Kurosawa – Lee, many others. We also have: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"   Kung fu against the undead. "Star Wars 1-6"              Bushido and Kung Fu in space. "Lord of the Rings"          This was great until the elf                              started doing Kung Fu, and                              Bushido moves. Damn it !!! "Charlie’s Angels"           Light on the Zen in the first                              movie, now they are totally                              slow-mo Kung Fu in the second                              movie. "Matrix","Matrix Reloaded", "Matrix Revolutions I & 2"   Wo, these are purely Zen evil                              with unreal slow-mo Kung Fu. "Lara Croft – Tomb Raider"   Now (II), these are Kung Fu. "Underworld"                 Kung Fu with vampires and                              wolves. "The Rundown"                The Rock goes Zen. Duane !!! "Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2"       Good Heavens, this is like                              taking a bath in the purest                              evil and distortion of life. Must absolutely every damn movie and TV show with action scenes have a unit director that is a Zen Roshi or has his own school of Kung Fu or Karate? Doesn’t anyone see this as a problem: as a prerequisite for working in action movies, or starring in one? It’s like every movie made in Hollywood for the Summer of 2003, was either a Kung Fu flick, or was made by people sharing Zen directly (Lost In Translation), or doing Zen meditation every night after wrapping the set (Mystic River). Zen is really burning hot in Hollywood. We really should stop subsidizing that evil. Zen is the snake that bites it’s own tail. If you embrace the void and  acausality, you will find yourself later in the midst of catastrophic  emptiness saying "how’d that happen?". Under Prajnatara (Perfect Wisdom Shining Star) of India, there was a disciple named Bodhidharma (Buddha Law). Under these grandiose  names, they studied the Buddha’s teachings, after Buddhism had  traveled East to China. The Buddha foretold that Buddhism would fall  into a Hellish path in India, after the Buddha’s highest teachings had  moved on. Bodhidharma was a native of Conjeeveram, near Madras in India. He traveled from India and arrived at Ching-Ling (now  Nanking), or perhaps at Guangzhou (Canton), perhaps both. There, Bodhidharma met with the Emperor’s emissary (some say Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty, see footnote), where they discussed the Sutras. As Bodhidharma (also called Da Mo, or Ta Mo in China, and Daruma in Japan) believed in  dhyana or meditation upon the nothingness at the heart of life, and as the  Lotus Sutra had been translated into Chinese by Kumarajiva who  traveled from India a century earlier and had served the Liang Dynasty well, the  lesser and distorted teaching of dhyana/ch’an/zen was rejected by practitioners of the highest teaching, and Bodhidharma was banished from Imperial territory. As an icchantika, or incorrigible disbeliever in the Lotus Sutra, he could  not be allowed to spread his teachings in the Emperor’s domain (they  wished to live happily, you see). But by banishing him, they did not act  as bodhisattvas, to thoroughly correct his errors and not let him slip away  to corrupt others, and thusly fall into the hell of incessant sufferings  (Aviichi Hell) for countless lifetimes. Out of this single  uncompassionate act, much of the suffering of the world has come. After he was banished, Bodhidharma went to the Shaolin Monastery at Loyang, West of Kaifeng in the Henan (Honan) Province of Western China, where the Huang He (Yangtze or Yellow River) tumbles out of the break between Zhongtiao Shan (2367m) on the North and Quanbao Shan (2094m) on the South, to flood the rest of China. At the Shaolin Monastery, he widely disseminated his distorted views of Buddhism, corrupting first the Shaolin Monks and ultimately the rest of the world. Bodhidharma’s school was known as Dhyana (from the Mahayana  source), or as Ch’an in China, and eventually as Zen in Japan. It comes  to flower in many different forms, in many different places down  through the ages. Bodhidharma’s very existence is denied by the Zen community, rendering the life of their founder as itself a void. This allows no one to  be responsible, and the Zen community to walk away from the train  wreck. So let’s assume that the history is true, and hold Bodhidharma  and Zen accountable, just this once. There was surely a founder who  brought Dhyana from India, however many names he is called. Footnotes on Wu-Ti: Concerning Emperor Wu: from "The Selection of the Time – Nichiren, disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha", Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, p. 544:         ‘Those concerned about their next life would     do better to be common people in this, the Latter     Day of the Law, than be mighty rulers during the     two thousand years of the Former and Middle Days     of the Law. Why won’t people believe this? Rather     than be the chief priest of the Tendai school, it     is better to be a leper who chants Nam-myoho-     renge-kyo! As Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty said     in his vow, "I would rather be Devadatta and sink     into the hell of incessant suffering than be the     non-Buddhist sage Udraka Ramaputra."’ This reference is to a document in which Emperor Wu (464–549), the first ruler of the Liang dynasty, pledged not to follow the way of Taoism. It actually says that he would rather sink into the evil paths for a long period of time for going against Buddhism (yet nevertheless forming a bond with it) than be reborn in heaven by embracing the non-Buddhist teachings. This story appears in The Annotations on "Great Concentration and Insight." Udraka Ramaputra was a hermit and master of yogic meditation, the second teacher under whom Shakyamuni practiced. He is said to have been reborn in the highest of the four realms in the world of formlessness. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:     Wu-Ti: Born 464 , China. Died 549 , China     Pinyin Wudi  (posthumous name, or shih), personal     name (hsing-ming) Hsiao Yen , temple name (miao-     hao) (nan-liang) Kao-tsu founder and first emperor     of the Southern Liang dynasty (502

TM and Tantra Part II

Question:

To what detail is TM explained in the Shiva Sutras.

When are you going to read it? So, Barry, the term tantra means ‘techniques’, mantra, yantra, asana, and puja, etc. And, the tantras are textbooks of techniques, etc. So you’re a practicing Tantric Acharya? But you haven’t read any tantras and the one you read years ago contained neither mantra, yantra, asana, or puja. So, you can’t cite a single tantra and you haven’t revealed a single mantra or technique, yet you make status claims of being a devotee of Kali on the tantric path? Go figure. An excerpt from the Shiva Sutra, translated by Swami by Lakshmanjoo: 7. Devi, imagine the Sanskrit letters in these honey-filled foci of awareness, first as letters, then more subtly as sounds, then as most subtle feeling. Then, leaving them aside, be free. 14. Bathe in the center of sound, as in the continuous sound of a waterfall. Or, by putting fingers in ears, hear the sound of sounds. 19. Intone a sound audibly, then less and less audible as feeling deepens into this silent harmony. Work cited: ‘Zen Flesh, Zen Bones’ Centering by Paul Reps Charles Tuttle, 1968 http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/centering.htm

Response:

…the ‘tantras’ are textbooks of techniques, Wrong. Right – which one have you read?

You are so confused. Real tantrics do not teach from books.  It is an oral tradition — period. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -How were these "textbooks" printed in the middle ages? The first known instance of writing in India appears on the Ashokan Pillar at Sarnath, circa 200 B.C. The earliest known Tantra, the Prajna Paramita Hridaya, was probably composed before the beginning of the Christian era. Many Sanskrit Tantras were transported to Tibet beginning in the 8th century – they were reproduced using wood blocks, an early form of printing in India and China. They weren’t. You are incorrect, Sir. We know from archaelogical and historical evidence that tantric texts were prepared in India from an early date. Mahanirvana Tantra, Hevajra Tantra, etc. There is evidence that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization (circa 3,500 B.C.) used a yantra, a diagramatical textbook, as a mnemonic device.

Perhaps philosophies but you won’t learn tantra techniques from those. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The word "garanth" means book alright but they were passed down orally. The word ‘tantra’ in Sanskrit means a ‘textbook of techniques’ – the Tantras. From the root word ‘tan’, a thread, like a suture, and ‘tra’, a tool for thinking. A tantra usually contains instructions on bija-mantra use, yantra, mudra, puja, and sadhana. They are very common in India, Tibet and in China. Tantric textbooks can be oral OR written down. The most popular Agama in India is the Srimad Bhagwatam, an oral history of Bharatvarsh, composed by Vyasa, who lived thousands of years ago in the Himalayas, but it wasn’t written down until the Gupta Age. The Rig Veda is an oral textbook and it was composed before 1500 B.C., but it probably wasn’t written down until the invention of Sanskrit by Pannini in the 2nd century B.C.

You are still confused.  We don’t use books to teach tantra.  We recommend books *about* tantra so a practitioner can get an idea of the teaching.  Likewise with the philosophy. You can’t learn tantra from a book. I didn’t say you could, Barry, but, it all depends on what you mean by ‘tantra’. You can’t seem to be able to define your terms very well. What would be the point of composing thousands of tantras if they weren’t manuals used for instruction?

Who knows? In some cases writing were so the court tantric could keep his job.  If he produced a lot rambling or flowery words describing what was experiencing then the king would keep him on unchallenged by another tantric who may not have had the time or means to produces such works. Much of it is just intellectualizing on something very simple. I am learning directly from a tantric master. Maybe so, but how can she remember all the thousands of instructions for practicing tantric sadhanas? Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet has to sometimes refer to a textbook – even he can’t remember all the words to the Kalachakra puja!

It is a he.  It is allowable to write down the instructions but they are still kept secret.  Yes, I’ve seen priest read the Navagraha puja because they don’t have it memorized.  But these *do not* constitute a textbook.  If you think so then you are using a *broad* definition. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The practice of TM 2 x 20 is pure tantra. So you believe. The practice of TM isn’t based on a belief system – it’s an applied practicum based on the science of energy conservation. The practice of TM, which utilizes bija-mantra techniques in order to realize Man’s essential nature, is essentialy tantric in practice. The TM technique is described in the Shiva Sutra, which was spoken by Lord Shiva himself; it’s described in the Mandukya Karika by Gaudapada, who was an acknowledged Tantric Master; and TM is fully explained by the Adi Shankaracharya in his his numerous comments on Yoga Sutras and in his tantric texts such as Dakshinamurti Stotram and in Saundaryalahari.

Do you practice TM anymore?  To what detail is TM explained in the Shiva Sutras.  What is probably described is just "yogic meditation."  TM is just a popular (or once popular) version of it. There is no other  knowledge higher than the Sri Vidya – Absolute Knowledge.

And Ford makes the best car on the road? Some people believe they are going to soon fly up into the skies naked. Mostly Tantrics, Alchemists, and Yogis. : )

Wrong — the Rapture Right thinks that. You believe that too? It doesn’t matter what I believe – it all depends on the facts on the ground. Whatever goes up must come down and that’s the natural law of causation. How you rise up is a matter of tantric technique – in other words, Tantra.

Broad definition which shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Response:

Willy keeps posting the same old tired clippings Barry – Well, I can’t hold a candle to all your cogent postings. But, why do all yours begin with RE: and end on one line?

Brevity is the essence of wisdom.   While you were posting all those ‘me toos’, I wrote a whole book. ROTFL!!! I’m sure you did. Now pick yourself off the floor and tell us the name of your publisher? showing he knows nothing about tantra Get a grip – you haven’t even defined "tantra", other than to point out that the word may mean a thread or string in Sanskrit, which I pointed out here years ago. You do read the archives, right?

You claimed something else. and probably doesn’t even understand what he posts. It’s simple: the ‘tantras’ are textbooks of techniques, composed by the Siddhas of Medieval India; texts such as Kularnava, Bhairavi, and Hevajra. That’s what the word tantra means – a textbook, Barry. You have read the tantras, right?

Wrong. How were these "textbooks" printed in the middle ages?  They weren’t.  The word "garanth" means book alright but they were passed down orally. You can’t learn tantra from a book.  I am learning directly from a tantric master. Of course he is NOT a tantric so what would he know? The practice of TM 2 x 20 is pure tantra. There is no other knowledge higher than the Sri Vidya – Absolute Knowledge.

So you believe. Some people believe they are going to soon fly up into the skies naked.  You believe that too? I would rather see in his own words what he knows about tantra not a bunch of articles he has culled from the Internet. These are my own words, Moron – the articles are just the references and the works cited. And, this is the Internet. D’oh!

So you are the Homer Simpson of tantra? In this case he actually ought to *read* the article he referenced (which does not mention TM). The TM technique IS tantra – it’s mentioned numerous times in the Vedic literature and in the Yoga Sutras. I can point to numerous Tantras, both Hindu and Buddhist, which describes the TM technique in detail.

No, TM is yogic meditation.  There is some teaching of right hand tantra involved but TM’ers are not tantrics.  That’s a whole different story. One can construe a lot of things from the sutras. I *AM* a tantric and I can tell you that tantra is as diverse as there are regions and villages in India. Maybe so, but you haven’t demonstrated any Tantric knowledge or revealed any Tantric secret practices.

They wouldn’t be secret if I revealed them, right? I have written on some of the standard *Indian* tantric siddhis.  Maybe you were out prairie dog hunting and missed them. Shri Vidya is ONLY one form of tantra. The Sri Vidya cult is one of the most popular forms of Tantricism in all India and TM is the most popular form of meditation. Millions of people, all over India, worship the Sri Vidya and  meditate on the TM bija mantras.

In a country of over a billion people one can easily make a statement that millions practice some specific path BUT if you had ever actually visited India you would know that about 85% of those people do so "in name only." It is a fact that all the Shankaracharyas agree that the Saraswati Dasanamis worship the Sri Vidya. It is also a fact that the Sri Chakra, is ensconced on the mandir at both Dwarka, Kanchi, and the Sringeri Mathas. It is also a fact that all the Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara established four mathas as seats of learning and for the worship of Sri Vidya. According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning – Jyotirmath, Dwarka, Puri, Srigeri and Kanchi.

So you espouse Sri Vidya.  Some folks espouse Vishnaiva tantra.  Some people espouse Sufi tantra.  Some folks espouse Tibetan tantra.  Some folks espouse Jain tantra.  Some folks espouse Bengali tantra. Yada, yada, yada. Welcome to Willy’s tantra shack.

Response:

…the ‘tantras’ are textbooks of techniques, Wrong.

Right – which one have you read? How were these "textbooks" printed in the middle ages?

The first known instance of writing in India appears on the Ashokan Pillar at Sarnath, circa 200 B.C. The earliest known Tantra, the Prajna Paramita Hridaya, was probably composed before the beginning of the Christian era. Many Sanskrit Tantras were transported to Tibet beginning in the 8th century – they were reproduced using wood blocks, an early form of printing in India and China.  They weren’t.

You are incorrect, Sir. We know from archaelogical and historical evidence that tantric texts were prepared in India from an early date. Mahanirvana Tantra, Hevajra Tantra, etc. There is evidence that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization (circa 3,500 B.C.) used a yantra, a diagramatical textbook, as a mnemonic device. The word "garanth" means book alright but they were passed down orally.

The word ‘tantra’ in Sanskrit means a ‘textbook of techniques’ – the Tantras. From the root word ‘tan’, a thread, like a suture, and ‘tra’, a tool for thinking. A tantra usually contains instructions on bija-mantra use, yantra, mudra, puja, and sadhana. They are very common in India, Tibet and in China. Tantric textbooks can be oral OR written down. The most popular Agama in India is the Srimad Bhagwatam, an oral history of Bharatvarsh, composed by Vyasa, who lived thousands of years ago in the Himalayas, but it wasn’t written down until the Gupta Age. The Rig Veda is an oral textbook and it was composed before 1500 B.C., but it probably wasn’t written down until the invention of Sanskrit by Pannini in the 2nd century B.C. You can’t learn tantra from a book.

I didn’t say you could, Barry, but, it all depends on what you mean by ‘tantra’. You can’t seem to be able to define your terms very well. What would be the point of composing thousands of tantras if they weren’t manuals used for instruction?  I am learning directly from a tantric master.

Maybe so, but how can she remember all the thousands of instructions for practicing tantric sadhanas? Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet has to sometimes refer to a textbook – even he can’t remember all the words to the Kalachakra puja! The practice of TM 2 x 20 is pure tantra. So you believe.

The practice of TM isn’t based on a belief system – it’s an applied practicum based on the science of energy conservation. The practice of TM, which utilizes bija-mantra techniques in order to realize Man’s essential nature, is essentialy tantric in practice. The TM technique is described in the Shiva Sutra, which was spoken by Lord Shiva himself; it’s described in the Mandukya Karika by Gaudapada, who was an acknowledged Tantric Master; and TM is fully explained by the Adi Shankaracharya in his his numerous comments on Yoga Sutras and in his tantric texts such as Dakshinamurti Stotram and in Saundaryalahari. There is no other  knowledge higher than the Sri Vidya – Absolute Knowledge. Some people believe they are going to soon fly up into the skies naked.

Mostly Tantrics, Alchemists, and Yogis. : ) You believe that too?

It doesn’t matter what I believe – it all depends on the facts on the ground. Whatever goes up must come down and that’s the natural law of causation. How you rise up is a matter of tantric technique – in other words, Tantra.

Response:

Willy keeps posting the same old tired clippings showing he knows nothing about tantra and probably doesn’t even understand what he posts.    Of course he is NOT a tantric so what would he know?  I would rather see in his own words what he knows about tantra not a bunch of articles he has culled from the Internet.  In this case he actually ought to *read* the article he referenced (which does not mention TM). I *AM* a tantric and I can tell you that tantra is as diverse as there are regions and villages in India.  Shri Vidya is ONLY one form of tantra. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – TM and Tantra Part II This essay has been uploaded for easy reading: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/sri-vidya.htm Sri Vidya The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation Swami Shankaracharya wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Saundariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. Many desciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand, Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. It is known to a galaxy of devotees that Swami Krishnanand Saraswati of Sringeri was the teacher of Guru Dev, who was himself a worshiper of Sri Vidya. The Srividya is described as a mnemonic device used for meditation practice and it derives from the Buddhist tantric practices which utilize mantra, yantra, and dharani. The Shri Yantra is a graphical representation of the TM bija-mantras, and it was invented in the fifth century in Bengal at the beginning of the Gupta era by the Sahajiyas or Baulas. In fact, any device can be used for meditation, a word, a diagram – even the word "mic" or "one". However, it has been found through experience over many years that certain sounds are more beneficial than others. At any rate, the use of the Sri Yantra is a purely mental technique – it’s been termed a visualization excercise by Swami Ageananda Bharati. Sound The letters of the vidya are Nada, or sound, and the absolute, and end as uttered sound. When charged with the consciousness of the Fourth these mere letters become mantra. Otherwise, words continually delude. The 16th syllable of the vidya also represents the Fourth. This Fourth is Kamakala. Beyond it is the Ultimate Absolute (Atiturya – beyond the Fourth), and beyond any sort of description. http://www.hubcom.com/magee/tantra/tripura.htm

Response:

Willy keeps posting the same old tired clippings

Barry – Well, I can’t hold a candle to all your cogent postings. But, why do all yours begin with RE: and end on one line? While you were posting all those ‘me toos’, I wrote a whole book. ROTFL!!! showing he knows nothing about tantra

Get a grip – you haven’t even defined "tantra", other than to point out that the word may mean a thread or string in Sanskrit, which I pointed out here years ago. You do read the archives, right? and probably doesn’t even understand what he posts.

It’s simple: the ‘tantras’ are textbooks of techniques, composed by the Siddhas of Medieval India; texts such as Kularnava, Bhairavi, and Hevajra. That’s what the word tantra means – a textbook, Barry. You have read the tantras, right? Of course he is NOT a tantric so what would he know?

The practice of TM 2 x 20 is pure tantra. There is no other knowledge higher than the Sri Vidya – Absolute Knowledge. I would rather see in his own words what he knows about tantra not a bunch of articles he has culled from the Internet.

These are my own words, Moron – the articles are just the references and the works cited. And, this is the Internet. D’oh! In this case he actually ought to *read* the article he referenced (which does not mention TM).

The TM technique IS tantra – it’s mentioned numerous times in the Vedic literature and in the Yoga Sutras. I can point to numerous Tantras, both Hindu and Buddhist, which describes the TM technique in detail. I *AM* a tantric and I can tell you that tantra is as diverse as there are regions and villages in India.

Maybe so, but you haven’t demonstrated any Tantric knowledge or revealed any Tantric secret practices.  Shri Vidya is ONLY one form of tantra.

The Sri Vidya cult is one of the most popular forms of Tantricism in all India and TM is the most popular form of meditation. Millions of people, all over India, worship the Sri Vidya and  meditate on the TM bija mantras. It is a fact that all the Shankaracharyas agree that the Saraswati Dasanamis worship the Sri Vidya. It is also a fact that the Sri Chakra, is ensconced on the mandir at both Dwarka, Kanchi, and the Sringeri Mathas. It is also a fact that all the Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara established four mathas as seats of learning and for the worship of Sri Vidya. According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning – Jyotirmath, Dwarka, Puri, Srigeri and Kanchi.

Response:

TM and Tantra Part II This essay has been uploaded for easy reading: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/sri-vidya.htm Sri Vidya The worship of Shri Vidya has been popular in India from very ancient times. Swami Gaudapada, the teacher of Shankaracharya, was a worshiper of Sri Vidya. Following his initiation Swami Shankaracharya wrote a lucid ode to Shri Vidya, the Saundariya Lahari, a translation of which is now available in English. Many desciples of Shankaracharya were worshipers of Sri Vidya such as Sureshvara, Padmapada, Vidyaranya and the brother of Chaitanya, Nityanand, Abhinavagupta, and our own Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. It is known to a galaxy of devotees that Swami Krishnanand Saraswati of Sringeri was the teacher of Guru Dev, who was himself a worshiper of Sri Vidya. The Srividya is described as a mnemonic device used for meditation practice and it derives from the Buddhist tantric practices which utilize mantra, yantra, and dharani. The Shri Yantra is a graphical representation of the TM bija-mantras, and it was invented in the fifth century in Bengal at the beginning of the Gupta era by the Sahajiyas or Baulas. In fact, any device can be used for meditation, a word, a diagram – even the word "mic" or "one". However, it has been found through experience over many years that certain sounds are more beneficial than others. At any rate, the use of the Sri Yantra is a purely mental technique – it’s been termed a visualization excercise by Swami Ageananda Bharati. Sound The letters of the vidya are Nada, or sound, and the absolute, and end as uttered sound. When charged with the consciousness of the Fourth these mere letters become mantra. Otherwise, words continually delude. The 16th syllable of the vidya also represents the Fourth. This Fourth is Kamakala. Beyond it is the Ultimate Absolute (Atiturya – beyond the Fourth), and beyond any sort of description. http://www.hubcom.com/magee/tantra/tripura.htm

Response: