I always laugh when I read such pompous excrement from the mouth of the hypocritical loZZer troll who believes, among other things, that "only a couple of hundred" innocent people killed by released felons is proof that the parole system works.... This is the same sociopath who wished the death of my children by a pedophile because I detailed his inane obfuscations for all to see and he simply couldn't handle it.... This is the same troll who calls people all sorts of names here and in the live chat room.... And oh, if you disagree with him, he automatically labels you a "right-wing fundamentalist pig" and then almost inevitably makes a comment about Ann Coulter, whom it is clear he covets so badly it torments him. Yet he claims to have a close relationship with God.... Sad... Pathetic... He is the LAST person on ET who should be talking about morality. The most damning evidence that the Zzzzzlozzzer is out of his mind is the time and energy he spends in this thread. He is universally hated save for a small cadre of similarly challenged lozzers, yet he comes back again and again for his daily dose of loathing. Add masochism to the list of his woeful traits....
Seek not to change the world. Change your mind about the world. This is the meaning of "repentance". If you wish to move closer to the core of my teachings, forgive. Seventy times seven, forgive. But understand what forgiveness is. It is to let what is true be true. What was true about the woman? She was innocent. And so is everyone innocent. What is sin then? Sin is a concept in the mind that does not change one's eternal innocence. Sin is the seriously insane notion that you can change your innocence to a state of guilt. Everyone who seems to exist in a body has conceived of changing innocence to guilt, entertaining seriously insane notions about the Son of God...who is innocent. Since all are part of the Son of God, all are innocent. All those who wished to stone the woman sought to change her innocence to guilt, having first sought to change their own innocence to guilt. So they were all sinners. Yet they are still innocent by way of insanity. To sin no more is to change your mind about guilt, and embrace the innocence of all. There can be no exceptions. All are innocent. If you think otherwise, you are insane. And your meaningless thoughts will show you a meaningless world full of meaningless behavior that can never change the reality God created as your Self. Ultimately, nothing has happened, nothing has changed. You only thought it did, giving birth to the illusion of time. Yet time is finished. You linger in it so long as you hold grievences you would not forgive. jem will never succeed in changing Zzzz's innocence to guilt...nor be able to change his own holiness to sin. Stoning is symbolic of an attempt to project one's own sense of guilt upon another. This takes many forms. It never works. Jesus
Main Entry: 1re·pent Pronunciation: ri-'pent Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French repentir, from Medieval Latin repoenitEre, from Latin re- + Late Latin poenitEre to feel regret, alteration of Latin paenitEre -- more at PENITENT intransitive verb 1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life 2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind transitive verb 1 : to cause to feel regret or contrition 2 : to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for
Such a twisted mind at work. So if you or someone else deems the hate speech is inciting someone to violence its OK to criminalize the behavior. You wish to give a judge a chance to find you guilty or a prosecutor the ability to look at what typed and charge you with an offense punishable by incarceration? I think it could be argued that what your wrote is more hateful than what I see liberals deem hate speech against gays. Therefore the only question is whether you are inciting others to violence. Perhaps your words are leading some of the simpler minds reading this board to want to attack "fundamentialist" pigs. Now you are a criminal zzz. (in your world) Now your next stupid point. "making laws based on their religious beliefs. All law is largely based on morality. And everyone makes law based on beliefs. If if you have an atheistic belief you have a belief system. And by the way much of our laws are based on the morality of set forth by the Catholic and Christian churches. Learn your history of law or jurisprudence.
Such a twisted mind at work. Yes, your mind is quite twisted to be sure.. So if you or someone else deems the hate speech is inciting someone to violence its OK to criminalize the behavior. If a court of law determines that speech was intended to incite others to violent behavior, sure, that is criminal behavior if the criminal code prevents such actions of inciting violence. You wish to give a judge a chance to find you guilty or a prosecutor the ability to look at what typed and charge you with an offense punishable by incarceration? These cases happen all the time. If someone incites people to flee a crowded theater by yelling fire, which is criminal, then using speech that will cause others to be incited to violence, there is not much difference. If the prosecutor can show the intent was there to harm someone via the incitement of violence in others, sure, that is a crime. I think it could be argued that what your wrote is more hateful than what I see liberals deem hate speech against gays. You could argue anything, but you would lose the argument. Right wing fundamentalist Christians are pigs. That is not anything like saying that a subset of all gays are something or other. The actions of the right wing fundamentalist Christians are worthy of delineating themselves as different from left wing non fundamentalist Christians, so while the left wing Christians are not piggish, they are humane, the right wing fundamentalist Christians are piggish....it is simply a matter of observing how the right wing cares for the poor, the sick, the rights of women, gays, minorities, etc. how they support killing and violence, etc. Therefore the only question is whether you are inciting others to violence. Perhaps your words are leading some of the simpler minds reading this board to want to attack "fundamentialist" pigs. Now you are a criminal zzz. (in your world) Since my history here at ET has been 100% clear in opposition to violence, your comments are rendered null...which your arguments usually are, i.e. null and void. I am against violence, this is not a new position. So why the right wing fundamentalist pigs act piggish, I have not suggested pigs be harmed physically. They should be ridiculed to be sure, these in name only Christians who worship money and greed, who ignore the instructions of their Master, Jesus Christ, should be ridiculed to the nth degree... Now your next stupid point. "making laws based on their religious beliefs. All law is largely based on morality. And everyone makes law based on beliefs. If if you have an atheistic belief you have a belief system. Laws are made by men, and their opinions of law come from either a religious thought process, which comes down to essentially: "God said this is wrong, so this is wrong" leads to conflict when people have a different view of what God, or non God has said...or Laws based on principles that apply to all human beings irrespective to their personal religions beliefs are much healthier for a society. A society does not need a concept of God to establish laws, an atheistic society could make all their own laws, even a law that allowed someone to think and believe in God of their own choosing. An atheistic society could have laws protecting freedom of religion, simply because they saw that allowing freedom or religion if fair and just. The golden rule applies to all people, is non denominational, and applies to atheists as well. It is the very best foundation of any law. Laws that are fair and just, need not have any grounding in God or religion, they just have to be the product of common sense and a principle of fairness and what is in the best interest of a society as a whole without unnecessary harm to a minority group within that society. And by the way much of our laws are based on the morality of set forth by the Catholic and Christian churches. Learn your history of law or jurisprudence. We are slowly trying to evolve out of it. The marriage law is a good example. People are holding onto their religious bias on this one. There is no evidence that gay marriage presents a threat to our society. There is just homophobia and religious based judgment without fact. Legalize it in California, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, and let's track the results for a while, and see if the product of a gay marriage (cases of domestic abuse, divorce, children and how they are cared for and behave in the world, etc. are all demonstrable and measurable) and if it seen that gay marriage has the same consequence as straight marriage, then there is no logical reason to exclude any one from the institution of marriage simply because they are gay. Laws evolve away from Bible based. Slavery, child labor, lack of women's rights were all a product of religious thinking and rationalizing as being okay. It took the true Christians and good Jews in many cases to work hard to overturn these antiquated laws and replace them with laws that are for the good of society as a whole.
100% opposition to violence? Give me a fucking break. Since you not only wrote that you wished that a pedophile got his hands on and murdered my children, and you further joked about it in the live chat room, your bullshit comments are further rendered null and void. You're so full of shit you must resemble a walking diaper when you venture out of your cave.
Law based on beliefs? This makes the world you seem to see and experience. As such, none of the so-called laws that make up the world are valid. The laws that make up what you think of as the "physical" are invalid. The laws that seemed to make man are invalid. Therefore all man-made laws are invalid. Take the marriage law for example. Bodies are invalid "places" where love is limited. How can two intent on limiting love find love by joining what cannot be joined, ie. the body? How is a non-joining made more valid than any other non-joining? Adultery, the attempt to make love meaningless, has already been "committed" by the time you appear to exist in a body. A body is for adultery. What can two bodies do to change that? Nothing! Holy matrimony is simply when two minds agree to allow the Holy Spirit to change the purpose of their non-joining. The purpose becomes joining where it is only possible to join...in the mind. Rather, it is an agreement to let what is true be true. It is to let what is already joined - the mind - to be one. This will not be allowed so long as the "couple" perceive themselves as separated out from the rest. Bodies are symbols of an attempt to break the mind up into little pieces, divorcing one piece from another. They emerge as "proof" that separation of mind is "real". Holy matrimony seeks to disprove what seems to "prove" that minds are separated. It seeks to gain the vision that no longer sees bodies, but rather, the Great Rays of light that extend to God. Other than that purpose, one "marriage" is as "valid" as another. Procreation is meaningless. It keeps the world turning. But the world is meaningless, and of no interest to our Father. It is not His creation. Rather, He has provided us with the means to undo the world as we see it. Have children. The Holy Spirit can use anything we "make" to undo the world. You will not be able to stop God's plan for salvation by having children. Birth is not a beginning. It is a continuation of a belief system full of "laws" that are invalid relative to reality. Morality is similar to ingenuity. It is an attempt to bring order out of laws of chaos that build this world. You are attempting to make what is built on laws of chaos permanent by adjusting rules to adverse conditions. But such adjustments are simply "sin"...the seriously insane notion that you can perpetuate forever and make "work" what is not God's creation. Morals are not the same as forgiveness. They are laws based on beliefs. Beliefs that build a false world do not allow what is true to be true. You are under no laws but God's. But the world is an attempt to twist His laws into making something else. It won't work, so why hold onto the world? Perception itself is a "law" that is twisted. It was made so you can "see" what you seem to see. You see nothing. So it is twisted. Under perceptions law, you see what you believe. The made up "law" of perception can be used by the Holy Spirit to undo the world you see. That is what I meant when I said, "Blessed are they who not yet seeing, believe". There is another world to see besides this one. Do you believe me? Jesus
This is what Hillary would really look like after just two years in office. Not that she will win, but it would be her face for sure... LOL...
I agree with the first part. You just gave the conservatives argument for why we do not need anti hate speech laws. We already have laws against yelling fire or conspiring to kill someone. Bravo zzz you just argued against anti hate speech laws. So why do you say you are for them and then attach that caveat about inciting people to violence. I tell you why because as a liberal you are trying to pretend your respect the constitution but put conservatives in harms way. Let a judge determine that the statements incited people to violence. . Your position is cynical at best and evil at worst. Your stuff regarding jurisprudence was just a waste of time. Our laws our largely based on religious principles. so stop getting offended because we wish to see partial birth abortion stopped. We choose the life of an individual and respect human rights. Abortion treats humans like property. How progressive is that.
I agree with the first part. You just gave the conservatives argument for why we do not need anti hate speech laws. We already have laws against yelling fire or conspiring to kill someone. Bravo zzz you just argued against anti hate speech laws. I don't think I have ever said we need hate speech laws. I support free speech, unless it is to the detriment of others, like inciting a riot or a crowded theater, etc. Of all people here at ET, I have likely appealed to the moderators for free speech to post what I want as much as anyone, and have tested the limits of that free speech, but even in this forum there are limits to free speech.... So why do you say you are for them and then attach that caveat about inciting people to violence. I oppose violence, so if someone is preaching hate then in addition to that hate they are suggesting actions of violence be taken by those listening to that speech, and if the listeners then riot collectively, that is criminal. I have not said "right wing Christians are pigs and as a consequence of being pigs they should be harmed, or silenced, or persucuted etc." I am just saying that they are piggish in their behaviors, whereas those who are truly following the path of Christ are not piggish...they are helping the poor, not judging others, not throwing stones at other sinners, etc. I tell you why because as a liberal you are trying to pretend your respect the constitution but put conservatives in harms way. Non sequitur. Let a judge determine that the statements incited people to violence. A judge and or jury will make that determination, but on the basis of laws on the books in most cases and precedent. So you have me all wrong. I want the freedom to say that all right wing fundamentalist Christians are piggish, but would oppose anyone who said the same thing, then followed that thought with "They are piggish, so you should go out and physically harm them or persecute them, or throw them to the lions, etc." Your position is cynical at best and evil at worst. More stone throwing and judgment from a in the name only Christian...no surprise... Your stuff regarding jurisprudence was just a waste of time. I find nearly all of what you post a waste of time, but I am just killing time while multitasking, so feel free to continue to posts stupid rants and start even more insipid threads like this. Why not escalate it and start a thread in the feedback section, where you will get even a bigger audience to wine and cry like a little girl? Our laws our largely based on religious principles. so stop getting offended because we wish to see partial birth abortion stopped. We choose the life of an individual and respect human rights. Abortion treats humans like property. How progressive is that. I am on record concerning abortion, and it is nothing at all even near what you are putting forth. What I see is the piggish Christians opposing birth control, and or abortion when the person really doesn't what or can't afford a child...because when the child is born, the piggish ones who were opposed to abortion and forced the birth...have no concern at all if the child suffers because the parents are not able to take care of the child properly. That is piggish, and shows a genuine lack of concern for human life, something that is the antithesis of real Christianity. If the right wing fundamentalist Christians would stop their piggish ways and make sure no child (or adult) in America goes without proper health care, nourishment, education, shelter, clothing...I will change my position on the nature of piggish right wing fundamentalist Christians...as then they would be following the path of Christ, who was all about healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. not accumulation of material wealth... In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell. http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/matthew-25.htm#firstq So how do the right wing fundamentalist Christians treat the "least of these?" Like Jesus would treat them? No freaking way...