RE: virus: Personally?

TheHermit (carlw@hermit.net)
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:59:11 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Snow Leopard
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 8:16 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: Personally?
>
>

> Hi, everyone!
> This is Joy. Iím the one who composes most of the ďSnow LeopardĒ
> comments, in case you havenít noticed. It was my idea to
> jion the list.
> My primary co-cospirator is Nathan Russell, who visited this
> list over
> the summer, frussell@frontiernet.net, heís on my side now.
>
> In case youíre interested, I scored INTP on your test, though
> usually I
> register as ENTP.
> Nathan registers as ISTP.
>
Oh Joy.

Hello Joy. I prefer to be known as Hermit on these lists. I am somewhere between ENTP and INTP myself.

> So long as web-sites and personality types have entereed the
> discussion, I might add that I am a 15 year old student, female, who
> writes science fiction. If I ever get published, Iíll send
> everyone a
> copy- and donít worry, itís not the sappy sci-fi that CS
> Lewis put out.

Male, old enough to know better and young enough not to care. Writes historical fiction and non-fiction. Mainly the latter. Enjoys reading science fiction.

>
> Anyone whoíd like to drop in a personal bio, Iíd like to know who Iím
> talking to.
>
Hope that helped.

> Also, Iíd like to apologize for my spurting responses. Since
> Iím shring
> the account, I need some approval from my friends here, and
> that means
> that based on oue scheldule, I usually can mail every other day,
> weekends excluded. Iím not trying to ignore anyone, and often I find
> myself wanting to respond, only to realize that the mail is
> three days
> old, and someone else has already resolved matters.
>

I understand. But would encourage you to reply anyway. It helps to fill in the gaps. I am currently only able to invest time in spurts myself.

> In response to the question I began to answer Thursday, ďWhat does
> Christianity mean to meĒ, I have to say:
>
> While the way people react does influence me to make generalized
> statements, personally, Iím very happy as a Christian. My
> best friend,
> imagiary or not, know everything, and everything about me,
> but loves me
> just the same.
>
I have tried both. I have found real people infinitely more rewarding.

> I feel like for everything that hurts another, I must make
> restitution.
> In any given situation, I usually have guilt (self- damage), another
> human who has been the victim of whatever Iíve done wrong
> this time, and
> God, who loves the other person, and me and is deeply
> offended that Iím
> messing up his creation. Itís easy enough for me to forget or
> rationalize what Iíve done to myself. I can usually make up for what
> Iíve done to others, but God has to keep the gears of cosmic justice
> running smoothly, and must have a reason to forgive. I canít provide
> that, but I have a Friend who can, (and did 2000 or so years ago.)
>

Don't be guilty, that is all a plot devised by a bunch of very smart and even nastier people who realized that the most effective handle to control people is their guilt. When you get over the idea of guilt (and it is just an idea, and a silly one that you have been taught to think is natural) then you can walk away from the rest of the baggage as well.

> To be perfectly honest, if I had to die for someone, Iíd
> probably want
> something in return, and Iíd want to get the most for my pains. All
> Jesus wants out of Christians is for us to be good people, as best as
> our fallible personalities can be, and for us to tell others,
> that they
> may find the same comfort.
> Life for life, I die for you, I want you to live for me.
>
If you have to "die for somebody else", then something is really screwed up. "Either a has to die, or b has to die" situations really happen so seldom that you are very unlikely to experience it. It does happen under a few circumstances. For example, when situations are created by sadists - the Nazi's used to pull this stunt; or more commonly when there are not enough resources available to save everyone in a perilous situation (e.g. not enough food, water, medical skills available). Of course, if you do see "Either a has to die, or b has to die" attributed to a god, then you know that either the gods are not able to access infinite resources, or they are sadists. There is no third choice.

> That is, by the way, the very same thing that Paul, Jesus, James and
> everyone else said about Christianity. Jesus said, ďBlessed are you
> when you are persecuted for my sake.Ē
>
> That says:
> a) youíre going to do something for me
> b) people are going to give you a hard time
> c) Iíll make it worth your effort
>
Ummm no. Very few if anyone is ever "persecuted" for their beliefs. People are sometimes persecuted for the expression of their beliefs. But more usually, for their actions. It is very seldom that belief enters into the picture - and when it does, history says that the odds are almost 100% for sure that it will be Christians doing the persecuting.

Please quote the verse that you are thinking of. In the NIV there are 18 instances of "persecuted", but none seem to match your usage. On the other hand, I did find this treasure: Matthew 10:23 "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes". I'd have thought that 2,000 odd years is long enough for most people to figure out that they have been stood up.

> James says, ďIf you convert a sinner, youíre saving him from hell and
> covering a multitude of sins.Ē
> Appliying that to me, when I was Born Again, I was spared
> from Hell, and
> God could no longer see a gret many shortcomings.

Again, this verse is not familiar to me, and my concordance proved no help. Please quote a source.

No, you may have shortcomings, but the only hell is the one that you created for yourself here on earth when you accepted that you deserved it. Fortunately everybody else has shortcomings too... and you don't need a God to avoid hell. Just walk away from it.

> _____________________________________________
> |ďFollowing Jesus, making him the center of your life, trying
> to do the
> right |thing (as He would have you do).Ē -Nathan
> ___________________________________________________
> I might add, my enlightened friends, the source of the word Ďsiní, at
> which many shutter, and a few laugh.
> It was an English archery turn for anything other than a bullís eye.
> Sin simply means ďTo miss thee markĒ
> Any of you who thinks youíre perfect, please let us know!
>

No. Somebody has mislead you. It is all of a piece with the rest of it. You really need to learn to check your sources for yourself and to stop trust people. In this instance, it would have been simple. The wwwebster says for sin - "Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin; probably akin to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is -- more at IS". Date: before 12th century. In Old and Middle English it is written "Syn" and is definitely derived from German SŁnde - we know this as many authors used many variations of it. "To miss the mark" in Old English was "missan" and Middle English converted that to "misse" both from the German and Dutch "missen". Again the wwwebster gives Etymology: Middle English, from Old English missan; akin to Old High German missan to miss Date: before 12th century.
Now archery in England was introduced as a way of developing longbowmen for war by Roger de Mortimer in 1322 (Mitchell, W., A Short History to the Commendation of the Royal Archers (Edinburgh: 1734)) and B.W. Kooi & C.A. Bergman An approach to the study of ancient archery using mathematical modelling (Antiquity Volume 71 Number 271 March 1997), so you can see that the usage of both words, with their individual stems predates archery and another myth bites the dust. A nice story, but like most myths, more style than substance.

>
>
> PHAITH?
> Just because you have a different word, youíre never really
> going to be
> able to devide these things. Believe me, Iíve tried. There are few
> people who will ever admit to phaith(i), especially because it makes
> perfect sense to them. Iíd also note that I havenít seen the
> definition
> of belieph, and if itís meant true belief, I canít see an oppposite.
> ďYeah, hi, I kind believe this, dude.Ē ???
>
> A pleasure communicating with such a vast intelligence as this
> Meme-fixated collective, to be sure.
> Thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings,
> Joy
>
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
Phaith = faith[r], while faith = faith[i]. And of course that is the usual meaning of the word. There is no Phaith[i], so there never would be a need to admit to it.
Belieph is a position held as a consequence of Phaith. Something which the holder has not absolutely proved for themselves but which there is enough reason to accept unless evidence transpires to disprove it. The opposite would again be the usual use of the word. Accepting by faith something for which there is no evidence, or where there is in fact evidence against it.

Regards, TheHermit