Freemasonry & Satanism???

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon;

 

> Well I'm of the view that 'intelligence' ' awareness' etc whatever

> you want to call it, the unseen force within matter, is not just

> some accident of some organic matter that just happens to exist.

 

 

Nice view. Used to have it myself. Until I made myself prove it. I

say the force you mentioned is varying degrees of EM Energy and

Charge. Intell. isn't neccessarily required. There may very well

be a God but any human professing an intimate knowledge of God(s)'s

will is toying with Godhood themselves. What if God is'nt and

intellegance per se, more a force like magantism or the sum of all

matter in the universe and has no care or even Iota that we exist or

are trying to decern it's nature. Bottom line; 1) Says who? 2) How

can they be so sure?

 

 

 

 

> I'm in agreement with you there, except I see a God as seeing us

> more like children...who'se doing the best that can done for us (

> some call it Mother Nature)...funny not many dispute that.

 

Most who use the metaphore mother nature view it as just that a

metaphore for a very large set of physical law governing the general

behavious of the universe spesifiaclly that part which directly

impact their individual lives. It not much different from the

personification of a persons car or truck. Personal pronouns and

some times names ar bestowed and a human like personality is

distilled from the " idiosincracies " that the vehical exhibist. These

idiosincrasies are usually a direct result of the persons treatment

of the car and a great deal of projection often occures. The

humaniod God is probably a direct result of this same function of the

human mind.

 

 

> More like a son or daughter who takes the good advice of their

> parents, but doesn't acknowledge their existence.

 

If I followed my parents advice or example I'd probably hate you

(albeit quietly) as a misguided follower of a false religion

(specifically 7th Day Adventist). But I don't in fact I admire you

considerable especially being a mamber of one of the few christian

religions that take veganism as a matter of doctrine. But I can't

allow myself to fall into the trap of unexamined beliefe and there

for won't be a part of any " doctrinalized " religion. Jesus as

protrayed in the KJV (the only version I've had extensive contact

with) was a great HUMAN being, but if there is a GOD, he was no less

his son than I am and no more innately holy (his works as discribed

put him on par with the likes of Gandhi and Mother Theresa)

 

> Does a God need to be created by someone?

 

Does a universe?

 

 

> I DON'T BELIEVE GOD IS SOME HUMANOIDAL CREATURE...MORE AN

> INTELLEGENT UNSEEN FORCE WITHIN AND BEHIND NATURE/THE UNIVERSE THAT

> IS THE GOOD FORCE THAT GIVES LIFE.

 

The lord giveth and the lord taketh away... I think god and the

universe are synonimous in the same manner that mother nature and

nature are (a simple personification) and that " good " is a consturct

of human culture and subject to infinite interpritation. Nature

doesn " t shed tears for fallen prey anymore that it laugh with joy at

birth these are two faces of the same " coin " . They are the product

of the fractile nature of the universe.

 

> So a 6th day creation doesn't seem so outlandish by some that

> don't believe in a God.

 

No less out landish than some that (DON'T KNOW). But according to

the 6th day creation humanity was present in it modern form and that

isn't that case according to current " Big Bang " theories. It would

take BILLIONS more years for our solar system to form and Bilions

more for us to appear as we are. That's where the 6th day, finds it's

fault.

 

> Physics can explain the mechanics of matter..but doesn't disprove

> the existence of a God.

 

That's the nifty thing about God it's not provable or disprovable and

since matter can be demonstarted and the concept of God can be

conveniently molded to fill the voids in current knowledge I choose

to side with the rather concreate information and leave the poetic

license of diefication to the poets. God is a nice way of comforting

our fear of ignorance. If it works for you fine but that doesn't

make you right, it just make you comfortable. I like discomfort

personally it keeps me from becoming complacent in my search for

knowledge or apathetic in my examination of the world.

 

David

[Guest guest]

Hi David

 

> Most who use the metaphore mother nature view it as just that a

> metaphore for a very large set of physical law governing the general

> behavious of the universe spesifiaclly that part which directly

> impact their individual lives.

 

Actually, a fair number of us on this list follow a Pagan spiritual path,

and think of " mother nature " as a genuine " entity " - some revere her as a

goddess, others (like myself) see it as a non-personified aspect of

divinity, but not *just* a set of natural laws.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Monday, April 12, 2004 3:38 PM

Re: Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Hi Peter

 

> > > Does a God need to be created by someone?

> > Does the Earth need to have been created by someone?

> There has to be a reason why the Earth exists.

 

Is the same not true of a god?

 

Do you mean there has to be a reason why God exists or there has to be a reason why some people feel a need for God to exist?

 

Simon To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

my, have we left the subject of vegan things faaaaaaaaar behind

i agree; we have. it's still sensical, though, because most people have morality and religion completely woven as one (for me, the two are very different). ~~heathen with a heart of gold, brii

>EBbrewpunx > > >Re: Re: Freemasonry & Satanism??? >Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:33:45 EDT > > > > > > Does the Earth need to have been created by someone? > > >of course, you can always go into the Cathar belief that the world was >created by the devil, rex mundi, and that god is a benevlonet god, but aloof, and we >need to shed our physical bodies to join him, we are trapped here and all >that...shun earthly belongings and things of that nature, so you can join god.... >jesus never died on the cross, since as the son of god he was incorporial and >not of this earth... >beliefs they apparantly descended from the bogomils and as far back as >zorastrasism in persia... >my, have we left the subject of vegan things faaaaaaaaar behind > >fraggle Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months!

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> Do you mean there has to be a reason why God exists or there has to be a reason why some people feel a need for God to exist?

 

That's a very good question... both questions seem valid to me... although I was really just making the point that anything which can be said about the Earth can also be said about god(s)... Whatever anyone believes is the "first" thing to exist, whether it's a "big bang", a creator god, or something else, by definition that must have either existed for eternity, or must have been created by something, so I don't see why it is more difficult to accept that about one thing than another.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

-

" David Brown " <quickformgreen

 

Monday, April 12, 2004 3:52 PM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

 

> Hi David

 

> I agree. I'm sure no one on earth can prove they know God or be 100% sure

is it God they are knowing within themselves ( with the exception of Jesus

Christ , not just because he is quoted as saying so, but because of the

moral teachings attributed to him and passed on to us. He could of said that

they came from himself. I believe he believed they came from God/Good ).

For myself I turn the word God into the word Good and try to aspire on a

journey of what I think is good that might lead to a knowledge of a God, if

it doesn't then I feel I wouldn't of made a mistake either way. As my gut

feeling is (having not believed and now more believe than not)

that Goodness has some sort of consciousness awareness and consciousness is

not exclusive to human/animal life.

S

>

>

> > I'm in agreement with you there, except I see a God as seeing us

> > more like children...who'se doing the best that can done for us (

> > some call it Mother Nature)...funny not many dispute that.

S

>

> Most who use the metaphore mother nature view it as just that a

> metaphore for a very large set of physical law governing the general

> behavious of the universe spesifiaclly that part which directly

> impact their individual lives. It not much different from the

> personification of a persons car or truck. Personal pronouns and

> some times names ar bestowed and a human like personality is

> distilled from the " idiosincracies " that the vehical exhibist. These

> idiosincrasies are usually a direct result of the persons treatment

> of the car and a great deal of projection often occures. The

> humaniod God is probably a direct result of this same function of the

> human mind.>

 

I don't believe in a humanoidal type God as you might have read from the

post above yours.

It makes me wonder why 'Nature' made us or allowed us to idiosincracies in

the first place, why did it bore us that nature?

S

>

> > More like a son or daughter who takes the good advice of their

> > parents, but doesn't acknowledge their existence.

S

>

> If I followed my parents advice or example I'd probably hate you

> (albeit quietly) as a misguided follower of a false religion

> (specifically 7th Day Adventist). But I don't in fact I admire you

> considerable especially being a mamber of one of the few christian

> religions that take veganism as a matter of doctrine. But I can't

> allow myself to fall into the trap of unexamined beliefe and there

> for won't be a part of any " doctrinalized " religion. Jesus as

> protrayed in the KJV (the only version I've had extensive contact

> with) was a great HUMAN being, but if there is a GOD, he was no less

> his son than I am and no more innately holy (his works as discribed

> put him on par with the likes of Gandhi and Mother Theresa)

 

I did mean only the good advice of parents not the bad advice that is

sometimes given.

S

 

We can't really deny that ( in a sense) 'Nature' bore us body and

conscious...It just doesn't make sense to me that it has no sense of self

itself.

S

>

> > Does a God need to be created by someone?

S

>

> Does a universe?

 

Human reasoning says it doesn't. But it still might.

S

 

 

/>The Lord giveth and the lord taketh away... I think god and the

> universe are synonimous in the same manner that mother nature and

> nature are (a simple personification) and that " good " is a consturct

> of human culture and subject to infinite interpritation. Nature

> doesn " t shed tears for fallen prey anymore that it laugh with joy at

> birth these are two faces of the same " coin " . They are the product

> of the fractile nature of the universe.>

 

I do have respect for the scientific outlook on life. But I have a hard job

believing that we and our fellow animals are the only ones that feel and

have a sense of self, and

that the nature that bore us does not.

S

 

 

 

<case according to current " Big Bang " theories. It would

> take BILLIONS more years for our solar system to form and Bilions

> more for us to appear as we are. That's where the 6th day, finds it's

> fault.

 

It's theory still.

S

 

 

 

>

> > Physics can explain the mechanics of matter..but doesn't disprove

> > the existence of a God.

S

>

> That's the nifty thing about God it's not provable or disprovable and

> since matter can be demonstarted and the concept of God can be

> conveniently molded to fill the voids in current knowledge I choose

> to side with the rather concreate information and leave the poetic

> license of diefication to the poets. God is a nice way of comforting

> our fear of ignorance. If it works for you fine but that doesn't

> make you right, it just make you comfortable. I like discomfort

> personally it keeps me from becoming complacent in my search for

> knowledge or apathetic in my examination of the world.

 

For me believing in a God shouldn't distract humans from examining the

universe either ...It's likely our future existence depends upon it.

 

Simon

>

 

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

[Guest guest]

Simon, my friend;

 

I think your religion, 7th D.A., and mine, Agnos., are at their

heart, different only semantically; meaning we use different words to

describe the same phenom's, and mingle a few of our definition,

differently. And I would wager that if the whole of your

congregation were anything like you, I'd be at least comfortable

among them.

 

To be Honestly, I think you're an agnostic that's not ready to let go

of the fairy-tails, quite yet, and that's okay, I've been there

myself. I'd say the majority of the modern world is standing in your

shoes, and has been for quite a while.

 

My particular brand of spirituality is that the Universe is a

singularity that mistakes itself for a plurality. I believe that all

humans are basically good by nature and that " evil " isn't the anti-

thesis of " Good " but simply its absence. And while I have my

spiritual hat on; I would agree with you on the concept the " GOOD " is

god (not visa versa) and LOVE (not lust) is god (not visa versa),

because I believe that LOVE (Unconditional-Compassion) and GOOD are

the same thing.

 

BUT, that neither the " GOD " of 7th D.A.'s nor of Independent Funda-

" MENTAL " Baptists, or any other religion corners

the " MARKET " . " Marketing " , in my opinion is where we get the

divisions. I believe that the danger lays in the " faith & worship "

aspect of " Religions " , and the resistance to accept others, semantic

variations, inherent in " Faith " .

 

Religion is about, us " Goodies " vs. them " Badies " . It's about the

fullest offering plates and the biggest buildings and the

most " Faithful " congregations. It's about who's God is the True

God. It's about who worships on the right day and who play's the

right music at services and who proselytizes (ADVERTISES) best.

 

Religion's about whose names for the days of the weeks are less pagan

than everyone else's'. Personally, I like the Islamic scheme they

number their days. They've got It-Tnayn <spelled phonetically> (the

second) It-Tleeta (the third)... Il-Gemma (the gathering) and Is-Sibt

(the Sabbath) granted they botched it up at the end but no bodies

perfect. I think we should scrap " day names " and " Month names "

altogether and just call today the 13th of the 4th of the 2004th, or

13th for short and be done with it. But what's wrong with having

Pagan names of the week anyway!

 

 

 

Religion is about whose " Wiseman " is so wise that they are the true,

rightful, " GOD " in carnet. Most ancient near-eastern scholars that

study the period allegedly covered by the bible can't be 100% certain

that Jesus was even a person and not a composite character, in fact

most of the bible is under severe historical scrutiny. As far as I'm

aware he's the only pretender to the thrown that has been taken

seriously and I can tell you it was accomplished by force, not by the

power of some inherent truth. It's starting to look like we've been

killing people over fairy tails that some one took WAY to seriously.

There are arguments that Jesus never even claimed to be the Son of

God. That Paul embellished a second hand story. There are allegedly

Gospels hidden away in Rome because they would crumble the

foundations of modern Christianity as a whole, in essence they would

refute the one fact that Christians all tend to agree upon that Jesus

was the " Son " of God. Imagine what would happen if that information

ever got out!

 

There'd be the " Faithful " that would write-off concrete archeological

evidence as a Satanic works to deceive the faithful they do that

already. There are people that maintain that Evolution is just a

satanic pipe dream but they rely on the primary proof (DNA) to

convict and execute their murderers and rapist every day (for the

bible tells me so)! Talk about fair, weather-faith!

 

It's the hocus-pocus that gets in the way of what really matters.

Some say worship the creator not the creature. I say there's no

distinction, and this is the point of contention. What if the idea

that " God " is in us and we are in " God " was meant literally and not

figuratively, meaning they, and we, are one and the same?

 

<I'm not Catholic> The materialism of the Roman Catholic Church (and

every other for that matter) bothers me, but it's one of the few

religions that has taken major strides to " Update " itself. It's one

of the few churches that full embraces evolution, that's a long way

from the Copernican Trials, and there are still churches that

actively seek to keep evolution out of PUBLIC schools. Yes, it has

a long way to go, which doesn't, but I think that it will be one of

the last organized " Faiths " to go extinct because it's willing to

change (albeit slowly). It's called the " Red-Queen " principle; if

you don't evolve you got extinct.

 

Anyway, rest assured, I'm not so ignorant to deny the possibility

of " GOD(S) " existence. But, I'm not so arrogant to pretend I have any

idea about their nature. And frankly, if there even is a " GOD(S) "

I'm not so sure we're ever supposed to " know " their nature, if there

even is a discernable nature in the first place.

 

David

[Guest guest]

interesting idea...

 

alas, the problem with "evil" is that it is a VERY subjective term..

wot is evil to one person isn't to another

wot is evil at one time in history, isn't at another...

slavery would be considered evil, correct?? but it was a normal part of civilization for thousands of years...

how about the slaughter of animals??? sounds pretty evil...yet supposedly "good" people do it every day....

 

My particular brand of spirituality is that the Universe is a

singularity that mistakes itself for a plurality. I believe that all

humans are basically good by nature and that "evil" isn't the anti-

thesis of "Good" but simply its absence.

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:46 PM

Re: Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Hi Simon

 

> Do you mean there has to be a reason why God exists or there has to be a reason why some people feel a need for God to exist?

 

That's a very good question... both questions seem valid to me... although I was really just making the point that anything which can be said about the Earth can also be said about god(s)... Whatever anyone believes is the "first" thing to exist, whether it's a "big bang", a creator god, or something else, by definition that must have either existed for eternity, or must have been created by something, so I don't see why it is more difficult to accept that about one thing than another.>

 

Yes beliefs can be a subsitute for actually knowing. An open mind has to be the best approach..whatever our beliefs.

 

SimonTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

I think your religion, 7th D.A., and mine, Agnos., are at

their

heart, different only semantically; meaning we use different

words to

describe the same phenom's, and mingle a few of our

definition,

differently. And I would wager that if the whole of your

congregation were anything like you, I'd be at least

comfortable

among them.>

 

Hi David

 

I do not attend a congregation regularly.. but have attended

quite a few over the years. I have attended the SDA ,monthly

vegan meal and health talk at The Advent Centre... in London

quite regularly over the last couple of years.

 

I never really feel that uncomfortable around vegans as I

have done around meat-eaters.

 

 

To be Honestly, I think you're an agnostic that's not ready

to let go

of the fairy-tails, quite yet, and that's okay, I've been

there

myself. I'd say the majority of the modern world is standing

in your

shoes, and has been for quite a while.>

 

I don't believe Jesus Christs life was a fairy tale.

Too powerful a figure for a lot of people to accept yes.

 

My understanding of agnostic is the belief that a God is

impossible to know'. I wouldn't go that far in my belief.I

think it would be very hard to prove.

I think it is all to easy for people now days to disregard

that a God exists.... Though I believe we shouldn't let our

beliefs cloud our quest for truth. Because I believe a God of

some sort exists( meaning a Conscious Creator rather than a

Creation creating consciousness )...that doesn't mean I will

disregard other searches for truth.

 

Praise God/Good!

 

 

 

<My particular brand of spirituality is that the Universe is

a

singularity that mistakes itself for a plurality. I believe

that all

humans are basically good by nature and that " evil " isn't the

anti-

thesis of " Good " but simply its absence. And while I have my

spiritual hat on; I would agree with you on the concept

the " GOOD " is

god (not visa versa) and LOVE (not lust) is god (not visa

versa),

because I believe that LOVE (Unconditional-Compassion) and

GOOD are

the same thing.>

 

I agree with your LOVE belief...where did you get it from,

from what source of teaching...would you have had that belief

if no one else had it?

 

 

BUT, that neither the " GOD " of 7th D.A.'s nor of Independent

Funda-

" MENTAL " Baptists, or any other religion corners

the " MARKET " . " Marketing " , in my opinion is where we get the

divisions. I believe that the danger lays in the " faith &

worship "

aspect of " Religions " , and the resistance to accept others,

semantic

variations, inherent in " Faith " .

 

Religion is about, us " Goodies " vs. them " Badies " . It's

about the

fullest offering plates and the biggest buildings and the

most " Faithful " congregations. It's about who's God is the

True

God. It's about who worships on the right day and who play's

the

right music at services and who proselytizes (ADVERTISES)

best.

 

Religion's about whose names for the days of the weeks are

less pagan

than everyone else's'. Personally, I like the Islamic scheme

they

number their days. They've got It-Tnayn <spelled

phonetically> (the

second) It-Tleeta (the third)... Il-Gemma (the gathering) and

Is-Sibt

(the Sabbath) granted they botched it up at the end but no

bodies

perfect. I think we should scrap " day names " and " Month

names "

altogether and just call today the 13th of the 4th of the

2004th, or

13th for short and be done with it. But what's wrong with

having

Pagan names of the week anyway!>

 

 

I agree names and days and such.. shouldn't matter...our

actions/compassions should.

 

But lets say... if you started a compassionate organisation

and an agreement to meet on the 13th of each month was made.

Then someone of a less compassionate organisation tried to

tarish your organisation by calling his org' by your name and

changed your meeting day to his..and used his less

compassionate ways and called them yours... would you like

it?

 

 

 

 

Religion is about whose " Wiseman " is so wise that they are

the true,

rightful, " GOD " in carnet. Most ancient near-eastern

scholars that

study the period allegedly covered by the bible can't be 100%

certain

that Jesus was even a person and not a composite character,

in fact

most of the bible is under severe historical scrutiny. As

far as I'm

aware he's the only pretender to the thrown that has been

taken

seriously and I can tell you it was accomplished by force,

not by the

power of some inherent truth. It's starting to look like

we've been

killing people over fairy tails that some one took WAY to

seriously.

There are arguments that Jesus never even claimed to be the

Son of

God. That Paul embellished a second hand story. There are

allegedly

Gospels hidden away in Rome because they would crumble the

foundations of modern Christianity as a whole, in essence

they would

refute the one fact that Christians all tend to agree upon

that Jesus

was the " Son " of God. Imagine what would happen if that

information

ever got out!>

 

Yes...The sooner it is out the better!

 

 

In the Few Gospels I have read..Jesus is never quoted as

saying " I am the son of God " refering to God as " Father "

yes. But then he is quoted as advising people to pray like..

" Our Father who is in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

Your kingdom come,

Your will be done on earth,

as it is in heaven, etc.

 

That to me..is saying " Gods will " as it was in the

beginning.

which was...a vegan diet for human and animals as says in

the 6th day of the Genesis Creation.

 

I don't care who wrote it. That, to me, is the single most

important statement ever written to humanity.

 

 

>There'd be the " Faithful " that would write-off concrete

archeological

evidence as a Satanic works to deceive the faithful they do

that

already. There are people that maintain that Evolution is

just a

satanic pipe dream but they rely on the primary proof (DNA)

to

convict and execute their murderers and rapist every day (for

the

bible tells me so)! Talk about fair, weather-faith!

 

It's the hocus-pocus that gets in the way of what really

matters.

Some say worship the creator not the creature. I say there's

no

distinction, and this is the point of contention. What if

the idea

that " God " is in us and we are in " God " was meant literally

and not

figuratively, meaning they, and we, are one and the same?

 

You have hit the nail on the head there...thats how I see it

We in God, God in us. The nearer we get to doing good the

nearer we get to God. Christianity tells us we have separated

ourselves from God,( Few could argue that we have not

separated from Goodness).

I can't see how DNA etc can disprove the existence of a God.

 

 

 

<I'm not Catholic> The materialism of the Roman Catholic

Church (and

every other for that matter) bothers me, but it's one of the

few

religions that has taken major strides to " Update " itself.

It's one

of the few churches that full embraces evolution, that's a

long way

from the Copernican Trials, and there are still churches that

actively seek to keep evolution out of PUBLIC schools. Yes,

it has

a long way to go, which doesn't, but I think that it will be

one of

the last organized " Faiths " to go extinct because it's

willing to

change (albeit slowly). It's called the " Red-Queen "

principle; if

you don't evolve you got extinct.

Anyway, rest assured, I'm not so ignorant to deny the

possibility

of " GOD(S) " existence. But, I'm not so arrogant to pretend I

have any

idea about their nature. And frankly, if there even is a " GOD

(S) "

I'm not so sure we're ever supposed to " know " their nature,

if there

even is a discernable nature in the first place.>

 

 

 

My experience with churches is they are trying to

undate...though I think the story of Jesus Christ is too

powerful from Christianity to go away.

I will believe in Goodness...that is my main way of knowing

God.

 

Simon

 

[Guest guest]

We have no point of contention really, and previously tried to define

good as being an act in agreement with sound logic.

 

Very pragmatic perspective again I agree and further more it could be

applied to the very practice that binds us all, abstinance from the

consumption of flesh which if judged is done so subjectively. Eating

flesh to insure ones own survivle is no less evil than defending

oneself from physical assault. Evil? Is it evil to preserve one own

life at the expence of another? Gandhi and Jesus <ostensably> would

say yes. The human animal and every other for that matter would say

that self-defense is justified by it's ends.

 

, EBbrewpunx@c... wrote:

> interesting idea...

>

> alas, the problem with " evil " is that it is a VERY subjective term..

> wot is evil to one person isn't to another

> wot is evil at one time in history, isn't at another...

> slavery would be considered evil, correct?? but it was a normal

part of

> civilization for thousands of years...

> how about the slaughter of animals??? sounds pretty evil...yet

supposedly

> " good " people do it every day....

> >

> > My particular brand of spirituality is that the Universe is a

> > singularity that mistakes itself for a plurality. I believe that

all

> > humans are basically good by nature and that " evil " isn't the

anti-

> > thesis of " Good " but simply its absence.

[Guest guest]

-

" David Brown " <quickformgreen

 

Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:06 AM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

 

> We have no point of contention really, and previously tried to define

> good as being an act in agreement with sound logic.

>

> Very pragmatic perspective again I agree and further more it could be

> applied to the very practice that binds us all, abstinance from the

> consumption of flesh which if judged is done so subjectively. Eating

> flesh to insure ones own survivle is no less evil than defending

> oneself from physical assault. Evil? Is it evil to preserve one own

> life at the expence of another? Gandhi and Jesus <ostensably> would

> say yes. The human animal and every other for that matter would say

> that self-defense is justified by it's ends.>

 

But If there is no need to kill an animal for food...if people have access

to the esimated 20-30,000 edible plant types foods in the world..than I

wonder if Jesus ( as the Bible is very clear in the beginnning about food

for us and our fellow animals) would not have taken the plates away for meat

eaters in his day. Would Jesus, Gandi, etc accept the savagery that is still

prevalent these days?.

 

A quick comment on the below statement

>

> , EBbrewpunx@c... wrote:

> > interesting idea...

> >

> > alas, the problem with " evil " is that it is a VERY subjective term..

> > wot is evil to one person isn't to another

> > wot is evil at one time in history, isn't at another...

> > slavery would be considered evil, correct?? but it was a normal

> part of

> > civilization for thousands of years...

> > how about the slaughter of animals??? sounds pretty evil...yet

> supposedly

> > " good " people do it every day...>.

 

Because people treat good and evil etc as subjective, it doesn't mean they

aren't objective qualities.

 

 

 

 

> > >

[Guest guest]

he's the only pretender to the thrown that has been taken seriously and I can tell you it was accomplished by force,

could you clarify this? i'm unsure about what you're saying. thanks ~~brii

>"David Brown" <quickformgreen > > > Re: Freemasonry & Satanism??? >Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:12:46 -0000 > >Simon, my friend; > >I think your religion, 7th D.A., and mine, Agnos., are at their >heart, different only semantically; meaning we use different words to >describe the same phenom's, and mingle a few of our definition, >differently. And I would wager that if the whole of your >congregation were anything like you, I'd be at least comfortable >among them. > >To be Honestly, I think you're an agnostic that's not ready to let go >of the fairy-tails, quite yet, and that's okay, I've been there >myself. I'd say the majority of the modern world is standing in your >shoes, and has been for quite a while. > >My particular brand of spirituality is that the Universe is a >singularity that mistakes itself for a plurality. I believe that all >humans are basically good by nature and that "evil" isn't the anti- >thesis of "Good" but simply its absence. And while I have my >spiritual hat on; I would agree with you on the concept the "GOOD" is >god (not visa versa) and LOVE (not lust) is god (not visa versa), >because I believe that LOVE (Unconditional-Compassion) and GOOD are >the same thing. > >BUT, that neither the "GOD" of 7th D.A.'s nor of Independent Funda- >"MENTAL" Baptists, or any other religion corners >the "MARKET". "Marketing", in my opinion is where we get the >divisions. I believe that the danger lays in the "faith & worship" >aspect of "Religions", and the resistance to accept others, semantic >variations, inherent in "Faith". > >Religion is about, us "Goodies" vs. them "Badies". It's about the >fullest offering plates and the biggest buildings and the >most "Faithful" congregations. It's about who's God is the True >God. It's about who worships on the right day and who play's the >right music at services and who proselytizes (ADVERTISES) best. > >Religion's about whose names for the days of the weeks are less pagan >than everyone else's'. Personally, I like the Islamic scheme they >number their days. They've got It-Tnayn <spelled phonetically> (the >second) It-Tleeta (the third)... Il-Gemma (the gathering) and Is-Sibt >(the Sabbath) granted they botched it up at the end but no bodies >perfect. I think we should scrap "day names" and "Month names" >altogether and just call today the 13th of the 4th of the 2004th, or >13th for short and be done with it. But what's wrong with having >Pagan names of the week anyway! > > > >Religion is about whose "Wiseman" is so wise that they are the true, >rightful, "GOD" in carnet. Most ancient near-eastern scholars that >study the period allegedly covered by the bible can't be 100% certain >that Jesus was even a person and not a composite character, in fact >most of the bible is under severe historical scrutiny. As far as I'm >aware he's the only pretender to the thrown that has been taken >seriously and I can tell you it was accomplished by force, not by the >power of some inherent truth. It's starting to look like we've been >killing people over fairy tails that some one took WAY to seriously. >There are arguments that Jesus never even claimed to be the Son of >God. That Paul embellished a second hand story. There are allegedly >Gospels hidden away in Rome because they would crumble the >foundations of modern Christianity as a whole, in essence they would >refute the one fact that Christians all tend to agree upon that Jesus >was the "Son" of God. Imagine what would happen if that information >ever got out! > >There'd be the "Faithful" that would write-off concrete archeological >evidence as a Satanic works to deceive the faithful they do that >already. There are people that maintain that Evolution is just a >satanic pipe dream but they rely on the primary proof (DNA) to >convict and execute their murderers and rapist every day (for the >bible tells me so)! Talk about fair, weather-faith! > >It's the hocus-pocus that gets in the way of what really matters. >Some say worship the creator not the creature. I say there's no >distinction, and this is the point of contention. What if the idea >that "God" is in us and we are in "God" was meant literally and not >figuratively, meaning they, and we, are one and the same? > ><I'm not Catholic> The materialism of the Roman Catholic Church (and >every other for that matter) bothers me, but it's one of the few >religions that has taken major strides to "Update" itself. It's one >of the few churches that full embraces evolution, that's a long way >from the Copernican Trials, and there are still churches that >actively seek to keep evolution out of PUBLIC schools. Yes, it has >a long way to go, which doesn't, but I think that it will be one of >the last organized "Faiths" to go extinct because it's willing to >change (albeit slowly). It's called the "Red-Queen" principle; if >you don't evolve you got extinct. > >Anyway, rest assured, I'm not so ignorant to deny the possibility >of "GOD(S)" existence. But, I'm not so arrogant to pretend I have any >idea about their nature. And frankly, if there even is a "GOD(S)" >I'm not so sure we're ever supposed to "know" their nature, if there >even is a discernable nature in the first place. > >David > Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months!

[Guest guest]

, " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...>

wrote:

 

> But If there is no need to kill an animal for food...if people have

access

> to the esimated 20-30,000 edible plant types foods in the world..

 

And here in lays my rational for veganism. But mine, IMHO, is a

pragmatic one. I load it with far less hocus-pocus than most-us.

:-D If I were stranded in the middle of no-wh'res with no green

grocer in sight and only miles upon miles of frozen snow (as opposed

to melted snow which is horrendous stuff) and the only thing edible

was thumps and maybe a co-maroonee, call me Canus Loopy, matter o'

fact even the Dawner option wouldn't escaped my contemplation... but

I'll spare ya the details. I'm not totally convinced that Jesus was

necessarily a Vegan or even an ovo-lacto. I'm not completely

convinced he was a single person and not a composite character/event

(s), like Moses and the Exodus(es) are looking to turn out to be.

 

> than I wonder if Jesus ( as the Bible is very clear in the

beginning about food

> for us and our fellow animals) would not have taken the plates away

(?) for (?) meat

> eaters in his day.

 

The assumption that the Bible though ostensibly " very " clear about

issues isn't necessarily historically accurate. And while some

CHOOSE to take there various versions as the " Gospel " truth purely on

faith, doesn't make them right. Not only that no where in this

passage quoted does it say JESUS DIDN'T EAT MEAT AND INSTRUCTED

OTHERS NOT TO AS WELL. I know people who feed their carnivorous pets

from their own plates, as misguided and unhealthy (for the animal) as

this practice is regardless of their diet, because they " LOVE " them

and treat them as childern if not equals. If ya wanna get nitpicky

they (Jesus' people or mordern pet owners) didn't have any

business " having " animals in the first place and maintenaning living

property regardless of species is slavery and therefore cruelly and

unjust from an ethical perspective.

 

> Would Jesus, Gandi, etc accept the savagery that is still prevalent

these days?

 

I don't think Jesus (?) or Gandhi classified animals and humans as

equals. Quote: " If the father knows what happens to the least of

sparrows does he not also see what happens to you " this implies to me

that Jesus believed sparrows enjoy a lower station in the hierarchy

of the living than men did. Gandhi's achilies' heels is even

more " crippling " <for give the double pun>, he didn't have a problem

with the casting of untouchables (suject of the second pun FYI) per

se, he just thought they should be treated a little more humanly...

Thats the equivalent of saying I don't mind eating animals but could

you find a kinder way to torture them while they're alive.

 

> Because people treat good and evil etc as subjective, it doesn't

> mean they aren't objective qualities.

 

That was a subjective statement. Just because you say they aren't

doesn't mean they aren't. " I think it so there for it must be... " To

you it maybe. But if every one else thinkith you to be nuts, does

this not, by your own logic, make you so?

 

Addressed generally: I have no problem with people taking certain

aspect of their life on faith alone but when you knock at my door you

better be carrying a little bit more than a bible and a firm

conviction.

 

Simon: I didn't mean to imply that DNA disproves god's existence, as

nothing physical can prove or disprove the existence of a god that

has yet to be defined, definitively. It does however go along way

in disproving the traditional interpretation of the creation theory

specifically it is concrete evidence that all life on earth

originated from a single source and further more to billions of years

to evolve and continues to do so.

 

The faith full seem to approach the definition of " god(s) " like

quantum physicist do the nature of the universe everyday bring a

subtle change to the general perception. The difference is that the

Faithful adamantly deny this occurrence while the physicist willingly

acknowledges it as the corner stone of science, further more the

latter continues to deprive god(s) realm of power (as defined by the

faith) of influence, pushing god(s) " will " further and further into

obscurity.

 

Everything that was once consider god(s) divine plan can now be

comfortable described under a well examined and re-proven set of

physical laws, even the ostensibly paranormal can be explained under

them, right down to the point where something perceived was either

and optical illusion or an out right hallucination. Science doesn't

and may never have all the answer but the diff is they don't claim to

where as the faithful fall back on the that's " God(s) " will, and

later we find out that it was actually a result of poor diet and

toxic substances in the water, that the power plant has been leaching

all these years. So what they're actually saying is god(s) is the

malignant power plant board of directors and a greedy food industry

bent on making you think you need things that are actually poisoning

you so they get you money and you land?

 

The NDE's of later discussion can be observed in the abnormal

workings of a stressed brain and the same effect can be achieved by a

Buddhist mock on what they like to think of as the verge of

enlightenment and the French call " je-presque-vue " and you and I

would call an epiphanious sensation. Could it be what we each

describe, possibly? Is it physically manifested in the brain, without

doubt? And since the scientist are the only ones who can show me and

explain to me what's happening I going to take their version over any

one who tries to tell me " that's just god knocking on yur noggen,

silly " which it might be, but since yur guess of what they (God(s))

want is as good as the next guys...

 

David

[Guest guest]

What I meant was that Jesus Christ is one of the few (ostensable)

claiments of Man-Godhood that continues to be considered so, at

large, and the " fact " has historicly been propegated by virture of

force or threat of force. Funny enough in the realm of law such

activities are commonly refered to as TERRORISM. Case points, the

crusaide, the inquisitions, the new england witch hunts, an of course

funda-MENTAL Baptist Parents. The verious Jihads that spread islam

across North-Africa into europe and through out souther and middle

Asia, the distruction of Jordan at the hands of Hebrews, (sorry those

were Christian examples, got a little side tracked) etc. But the

point is that even " peacable " religions are really championed by

peaceful means.

 

The word ISLAM means surrender (not to an aggressor but to the will

of God.

 

Simon will point out the majoprity of Christian atricities in

the " old world " were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church which

is mostly true and he in do most people find the issue with that

organization. But I dout that ANY religion of any kind is guilty

less in the employment of force in an effort to preserve itself. But

what about those new world christians that used scripture to justify

miriad crimes. Always done in the name of Jesus, because that's the

only person Christians serve, beside themselves of course.

 

Budhism for instance is theoretically one of the most pacifistic

religions today has a history of protecting itself with force, Sho-

lin (?) monks and there famous associated brand of Kung-fu, and it's

not just the employment of hands they use an arsenal of weponry.

Woo, way off topic there.

 

Basically what I was trying to say is that most Man-Gods are

considered to be false claiments in this day and age the Ceasars, the

pharos, the various south american kings and emperos. Budha to my

knowledge never actually claimed to be " the God " , I'm no expert on

Budhism and the Gods of most religions never actually soild

themselves with human flesh. Christ is the only ones who's aledged

claim still holds watter with a significant, monority (contray to

their beliefe otherwise), of the worlds population.

 

Hope that confused you even further. ;-D

 

David

[Guest guest]

-

" David Brown " <quickformgreen

 

Friday, April 16, 2004 10:51 AM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

 

> , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...>

> wrote:

>

> > But If there is no need to kill an animal for food...if people have

> access

> > to the esimated 20-30,000 edible plant types foods in the world..

>

> And here in lays my rational for veganism. But mine, IMHO, is a

> pragmatic one. I load it with far less hocus-pocus than most-us.>

> :-D If I were stranded in the middle of no-wh'res with no green

> grocer in sight and only miles upon miles of frozen snow (as opposed

> to melted snow which is horrendous stuff) and the only thing edible

> was thumps and maybe a co-maroonee, call me Canus Loopy, matter o'

> fact even the Dawner option wouldn't escaped my contemplation... but

> I'll spare ya the details.>

 

Do you think you will ever be stranded in such a way? I doubt it. No-one

needs to

be isolated from plant foods theses days.

 

 

> > than I wonder if Jesus ( as the Bible is very clear in the

> beginning about food

> > for us and our fellow animals) would not have taken the plates away

> (?) for (?) meat

> > eaters in his day.

>

> The assumption that the Bible though ostensibly " very " clear about

> issues isn't necessarily historically accurate. And while some

> CHOOSE to take there various versions as the " Gospel " truth purely on

> faith, doesn't make them right. Not only that no where in this

> passage quoted does it say JESUS DIDN'T EAT MEAT AND INSTRUCTED

> OTHERS NOT TO AS WELL. I know people who feed their carnivorous pets

> from their own plates, as misguided and unhealthy (for the animal) as

> this practice is regardless of their diet, because they " LOVE " them

> and treat them as childern if not equals. If ya wanna get nitpicky

> they (Jesus' people or mordern pet owners) didn't have any

> business " having " animals in the first place and maintenaning living

> property regardless of species is slavery and therefore cruelly and

> unjust from an ethical perspective.

>

> > Would Jesus, Gandi, etc accept the savagery that is still prevalent

> these days?

>

> I don't think Jesus (?) or Gandhi classified animals and humans as

> equals. Quote: " If the father knows what happens to the least of

> sparrows does he not also see what happens to you " this implies to me

> that Jesus believed sparrows enjoy a lower station in the hierarchy

> of the living than men did. Gandhi's achilies' heels is even

> more " crippling " <for give the double pun>, he didn't have a problem

> with the casting of untouchables (suject of the second pun FYI) per

> se, he just thought they should be treated a little more humanly...

> Thats the equivalent of saying I don't mind eating animals but could

> you find a kinder way to torture them while they're alive.

>

> > Because people treat good and evil etc as subjective, it doesn't

> > mean they aren't objective qualities.

>

> That was a subjective statement. Just because you say they aren't

> doesn't mean they aren't. " I think it so there for it must be... " To

> you it maybe. But if every one else thinkith you to be nuts, does

> this not, by your own logic, make you so?

>

> Addressed generally: I have no problem with people taking certain

> aspect of their life on faith alone but when you knock at my door you

> better be carrying a little bit more than a bible and a firm

> conviction.?.

 

It seems to me that you know already what is good for us and animals if you

are living as Vegan as you can. I think would skip your door.

 

 

" that's just god knocking on yur noggen,

> silly " which it might be, but since yur guess of what they (God(s))

> want is as good as the next guys...>

 

I know veganism is good....that's good enough for me.

 

Simon

 

 

>

>

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

[Guest guest]

I was born and raised in the Interior of Alaska the chances were very

real about seven months out of the year so yes.

 

, " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...>

wrote:

>

> -

> " David Brown " <quickformgreen>

>

> Friday, April 16, 2004 10:51 AM

> Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

>

>

> > , " simonpjones "

<simonpjones@o...>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > But If there is no need to kill an animal for food...if people

have

> > access

> > > to the esimated 20-30,000 edible plant types foods in the

world..

> >

> > And here in lays my rational for veganism. But mine, IMHO, is a

> > pragmatic one. I load it with far less hocus-pocus than most-us.>

> > :-D If I were stranded in the middle of no-wh'res with no green

> > grocer in sight and only miles upon miles of frozen snow (as

opposed

> > to melted snow which is horrendous stuff) and the only thing

edible

> > was thumps and maybe a co-maroonee, call me Canus Loopy, matter o'

> > fact even the Dawner option wouldn't escaped my contemplation...

but

> > I'll spare ya the details.>

>

> Do you think you will ever be stranded in such a way? I doubt it.

No-one

> needs to

> be isolated from plant foods theses days.

>

>

> > > than I wonder if Jesus ( as the Bible is very clear in the

> > beginning about food

> > > for us and our fellow animals) would not have taken the plates

away

> > (?) for (?) meat

> > > eaters in his day.

> >

> > The assumption that the Bible though ostensibly " very " clear about

> > issues isn't necessarily historically accurate. And while some

> > CHOOSE to take there various versions as the " Gospel " truth

purely on

> > faith, doesn't make them right. Not only that no where in this

> > passage quoted does it say JESUS DIDN'T EAT MEAT AND INSTRUCTED

> > OTHERS NOT TO AS WELL. I know people who feed their carnivorous

pets

> > from their own plates, as misguided and unhealthy (for the

animal) as

> > this practice is regardless of their diet, because they " LOVE "

them

> > and treat them as childern if not equals. If ya wanna get

nitpicky

> > they (Jesus' people or mordern pet owners) didn't have any

> > business " having " animals in the first place and maintenaning

living

> > property regardless of species is slavery and therefore cruelly

and

> > unjust from an ethical perspective.

> >

> > > Would Jesus, Gandi, etc accept the savagery that is still

prevalent

> > these days?

> >

> > I don't think Jesus (?) or Gandhi classified animals and humans as

> > equals. Quote: " If the father knows what happens to the least of

> > sparrows does he not also see what happens to you " this implies

to me

> > that Jesus believed sparrows enjoy a lower station in the

hierarchy

> > of the living than men did. Gandhi's achilies' heels is even

> > more " crippling " <for give the double pun>, he didn't have a

problem

> > with the casting of untouchables (suject of the second pun FYI)

per

> > se, he just thought they should be treated a little more

humanly...

> > Thats the equivalent of saying I don't mind eating animals but

could

> > you find a kinder way to torture them while they're alive.

> >

> > > Because people treat good and evil etc as subjective, it

doesn't

> > > mean they aren't objective qualities.

> >

> > That was a subjective statement. Just because you say they aren't

> > doesn't mean they aren't. " I think it so there for it must

be... " To

> > you it maybe. But if every one else thinkith you to be nuts, does

> > this not, by your own logic, make you so?

> >

> > Addressed generally: I have no problem with people taking certain

> > aspect of their life on faith alone but when you knock at my door

you

> > better be carrying a little bit more than a bible and a firm

> > conviction.?.

>

> It seems to me that you know already what is good for us and

animals if you

> are living as Vegan as you can. I think would skip your door.

>

>

> " that's just god knocking on yur noggen,

> > silly " which it might be, but since yur guess of what they (God

(s))

> > want is as good as the next guys...>

>

> I know veganism is good....that's good enough for me.

>

> Simon

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To send an email to -

 

> >