WANT COMMENTS--TWO VIEWS OF EXISTENCE. [Archive]

View Full Version : WANT COMMENTS--TWO VIEWS OF EXISTENCE.

thomaspainerevisited

09-22-2004, 12:17 AM

TWO ONTOLOGICAL VIEWS: Part A

ON THE ONE HAND, COLUMN A :

THE TEUTONIC TACK:
1. Has not mankind been the most successful and fortunate accident (See: Chaos Theory) amongst the animal kingdom in satisfying biological necessities through the use of its burgeoning cognitive capacity, which was shaped over eons?
2. And in this connection, has not man’s intelligence developed as a reactive overcoming of pain, which engenders a heightened capacity to recognize, feel, and deal with pain?
3. And, are not these the wellsprings of motivation, which focus on self-preservation and its extension: propagation?
4. And, when man’s physicality, cognitive capacity, surrounding environment, and time on Earth are accounted for, is this not fundamentally determinative of humanity’s level of existence within the flux of chaos?
5. And, do not such biological necessities serve as a Tantalusian anchor on possibility as well as the true roots behind as well as spurs to fundamental human endeavor.
6. And is it not true that no man or collective of men truly progresses lest the bottom rung as well as each successive rung on Maslov’s “Hierarchy of Needs” is overcome, for can anything exist if biological necessities are not fulfilled?
7. And, has not this evolutionary and thus social evolutionary journey upwards away from instinctive hedonistic life evermore enable man to shape his world through the production of technology, which has satisfied the necessities of life and thus enabled the basis for civilized existence?
8. And yet, may man technologically progress to satisfy biological necessities and not act at the expense of others, for are not earthly resources finite, and does not man fall into Parson Malthus’s trap?
9. And thus, is not mankind’s technology both a blessing and a curse, for if the Atlee brings forth meat as well as the grinding stone brings fourth bread, does not the neutron bomb as well as the pitting of future eugenic genetic weapons threaten humanity’s existence?
10. And yet, did not George Orwell say, “Men are only as good as their technical development allows them to be. “?
11. And again, does this indicate that man’s essential nature is not inherent, but is a outcome of an overcoming, which is a product of the existent environment?
12. And, does that not denote that man is not a reflection of something more, of perhaps God (….and is not it true that the concept of God is man’s anthropomorphizing that which he cannot master: fate?)
13. And thus, is not the higher in man only an extension and expression of the lower in man, or is not the higher in man an imperfect surmounting --a sublimating-- of man’s basic bestial nature?
14. Or, is the higher in man coexistent with the lower in man, and is man like Sisyphus condemned to struggle against himself while he exists, for do we not all begin as and often remain as Kohlberg’s youthful hedonists?
15. And, are not the winners amongst humanity always the cunning, for do not always the wily weave deceiving tapestries to reduce the threats entailed in an honest and forthright open physical battle for existence?
16. And, are and have not religion, philosophy, and history been little more than tottering tenuous tapestries woven to avoid this honest open physical competition, for do not such tapestries serve to deflects man from understanding the nature and existence of the battle for advantage as well as serve to keep and compound advantages for the fortunate?
17. And yet, do not such tapestries comprise the social contract upon which forms and maintains civilizations?
18. And, does not the absence of such tenuous tapestries, false skins, or fabrications that comprise civilized existence always threaten to unbind or unravel?
19. And, does this not throw man back to his origins and shed light upon his essential character, that is, into Thomas Hobbes’ “State-of-Nature,” where life is nasty, brutish, and short; and yet, is it not the cycle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in the birth and death of nations that which gives rise to higher forms of civilization?
20. And yet, if this is so and we do not believe in George Hegel’s attempt to resurrect God through religious-historical perfection, do we not evermore see that the social contract and the societies from which that social contract stem were --and continue to be-- born of coy disingenuousness to secure non-threatening existence.
21. And yet, can man, who exists always in evermore non-instinctually based systems of disingenuousness truly progress, for can one or many truly struggle against artificial illusions and arrive at a better authentic and non self-destructive self or lasting society?
22. And, do not the thin bonds of civilized rule as well as our terrified need for self-preservation embroil man in hierarchical & cannibalistic structures marked by domination and the seeming bliss of being safe within the pack, and is this not exemplified by the 20th Century’s rise of the Nation State, which has given new meaning to carnage, which demonstrates man’s inability to tackle his basic instinctual hedonistic nature?
23. And, if order is built upon disingenuousness, can we examine such order without tearing everything down; or, is a new forthcoming destruction that which will occur since we dare not learn from our yesterdays?
24. And yet, if man does not believe in the existence of universal order (or deity or deities) in preference to that which flows from instinctual existence, may man from this be the valuator and measurer of all things and yet resist objectifying and thus trampling upon his brothers and sisters, for may a measurer not help but place other men into a self-serving calculation? (See the work of Richard Rubenstein).

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
Evidence:

Hasn’t there always been domination, that is, by those of supposed knowledge, of breeding, of genteelness, of position, of militaristic prowess, which may be seen in such classes as the noble, the royal, and the elect? And have there not always been versions of the Seigneur, the atheling, the milord, the duchess, the sidar, the sachem, and the margrave throughout history?

And, hasn’t there always a lower class, that is, those that go by such names as the meaner sort, the proletariat, the commoners, the churl, the boor, the yokel, the unwashed masses, and the untouchables?

And thus, does not the existence of society’s stratification throughout history demonstrate man’s --abet imperfect-- penchant to dominate himself, which demonstrates mankind’s fundamental characteristic, which Nietzsche deemed “The Will to Power.”

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
And, why is the impertinence of the lower class always the foci of the upper class, that is, if this arrangement is natural?

“The lower class, they are revolting. You said it, for they stink on ice.” This is from Mel Brooks’ “HISTORY OF THE WORLD.”

Or is this just more sociological Conflict Theory type dribble?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

thomaspainerevisited

09-22-2004, 12:18 AM

ON THE OTHER HAND, COLUMN B:

THE ENLIGHTENMENT TACK:
25. IS THERE NOT ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE, WHICH IS GROUND UPON FUNDIMENTAL UNCHANGING PRINCIPALS OR GENERAL LAWS?
26. And, does man not intuit and approach the essence of such unchanging truths or universal laws in the natural sciences: in physics, in chemistry, and in biology; which ---believe it or not--- includes but is not limited to ‘objective reality’ as well as ‘cause-and-effect,’ which was previously heralded by THE ENLIGHTENMENT, which Forrest Gump’s momma said was “THE AGE OF REASON. “
27. And, is it not true that a belief in the existence of God as the false ultimate projection of man’s anthropomorphizing nature so at to deal with ‘the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ (i.e., fate) is sheer 19th and 20th Century philosophic hubris, for is it not the supererogatory height of anthropomorphizing that ascribes man as the center from which all things achieve consequentiality.
28. And, do religion, philosophy, and science not involve mankind in the search for existent universal truth, and may this not if taken seriously demand innumerable “personal” striving at natural discovery?
29. And, out of a belief in and search for such an existent order, are we not continually led to a belief in God from the intricate marvels and truths found in abstract and concrete experience, which may be drawn from textual reflection as well as attentive perception in daily life, which negates vicarious and banal existence?
30. And, out of such a search for order, do not ---and have not--- philosophy and non-perverted religion serve to guide man as primary moral compass throughout history?
31. For, is it not truth that according to man’s sacred texts ‘that mankind’ is an imperfect reflection of God?
32. And, is it not also true that love of God thereupon entails love and respect for his Creator’s creation, which entails both self and mankind, which is ground upon reverence for the gift of and wonder at existence rather than blind-folded fear of external otherworldly punishment?
33. And thus, is it not this understanding that endows man with inherent immutable and inestimable value as well as invested with certain unalienable rights, which some might unrighteous attempt to deny, but neither truly add nor detract—or attack, if that love of life is balanced and radiates outwardly?
34. And thus, is it not true that out of such an understanding we find Jesus Christ’s lessons echoed in many faiths, which simply states, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” ….or failing this…. “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”
35. And, is it not true that it is man’s perversion of such self-evident truths that foments war and worsens famines, poverty, and saps the spirit?
36. And again, why should one value one’s neighbor, or more succinctly one’s fellow human being?
37. Well, do we not also find in the above understanding that a divine spark exists in all of mankind, which is inherent and reflected by the saying “the better lights of our nature,” which may be kindled or Enlightened, which separates man from mere beasts, and are we not given individual talents (or lights) that society may rationally harness and/or stimulate to improve the general welfare?
38. And, since such a divine spark is said to exist, is it not true that ---when kindled--- there exists in every man and woman the ability to examine and determine right and wrong ---by degrees or generally--- as well as act upon that knowledge, which is the unique ability amongst living things to perceive and obtain truth, for did not Jesus say “The kingdom of God is within you”?
39. And thus, is there not then a belief that man is free to follow his Common Sense in rational society as it is true that he is responsible for his own actions, for may we not see the negation or non-kindling of this divine spark as judgment upon and/or disaster befalling individuals or generations?
40. And yet, if such a divine spark exists in all of mankind from which mankind may derive essential truth from sense experience, which I reiterate as Enlightenment philosophy’s concept of “Common Sense,” is it not also true that there exists no kingly class of higher men favored by God to continually hold sway over other men, that is, as it also follows that mankind may use the sum of its wisdom for self-government.
41. And is it not this belief that has enabled our American experiment?
42. And given this, is it not patiently obvious that the striving to assure happiness of the people by safeguarding and seeking to expand life, liberty as well as the fruits of one’s labors would not have existed in an absence of a belief in God. Nevertheless, is it also not true that such unbalanced liberties may become license, that is, as we evermore live in the crawling shadow of Nietzsche’s “The Death of God” and pray to mammon, for do we in America also live in the shadow of “The death of democratic-republican responsibility, for does not an absense of a belief in one render the other of improbably?

Hey, I'm just thinking out loud.
Bitch, comment, or whatever--please!

Syd

09-30-2004, 03:34 PM

ThomasPaine,

I just fell upon this thread. I, for one, believe that God created the earth and all that's on it, the universe and all that's in it and man and animals, etc. No fact in the Bible has ever been able to be refuted Something had to begin from "nothing," right? To believe any other theory other than that a Supreme Being, namely God, created the earth and man, goes against every scientific theory known to man, such as the theories of thermal dynamics, etc. Nothing goes from simplistic to more complex and to believe the evolution theory or "Big Bang Theory" or any other theory, takes more faith than the faith to believe that a Supreme Being, God, existed since the beginning of time.

thomaspainerevisited

10-01-2004, 07:07 PM

Syd

10-01-2004, 08:14 PM

YEP! Just wanted to note that amongst the plethera of points that could be made about is just what you mentioned. However, both Darwinism as well as a belief in God are just that--beliefs.
That's why religion is a faith..... The unspoken dimension above is this: athiesm and Darwinism do not necessarily lead one to devalue mankind, for can not one better appreciate the value of man being that he is unique? On the otherd and, also without mention ---by in large--- is the the use of God by individuals has been perverse. This is just something I want to keep scribbling on, that is, because it is --I believe is--- important.

Yes, it is a belief. But keep in mind, the Bible and the facts regarding the existence, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ have never been refuted to this day. If one is to disregard God and Jesus Christ as being the truth, wouldn't it be wise for one to devote a reasonable amount of time researching the Bible to find out for sure whether one beliefs it is valid or not? That's my challenge to you, Thomaspaine. My husband, himself, once a total atheist, decided to disprove Christianity. But knowing that Christianity states that anyone who does not know Jesus Christ will never come to the Father and therefore, never have eternal life. He decided that he owed it to himself to be sure that it really wasn't the truth and he devoted a great deal of time checking it out. He came to realize that it really was the truth. You may find that it isn't the truth to you, but don't you at least owe yourself a chance to be sure that you're wrong? Just a thought...

thomaspainerevisited

10-02-2004, 12:29 AM

Syd

10-02-2004, 12:43 AM

Actually, I'm not an athiest or even an agnostic---well, 80 percent of the time. The 20 percent of the time -----in which I am----- comes from seeing the worst scoundrel pirates in the world raping the world under the banner of Jesus Christ and/or the facade of Christianity, much as the crusaders did way back. What did and still do we call a near Century of a similar brand of false Christian religious(faith? Answer: THE DARK AGES, that is, under the banner of God, everthing of God was made Godless and DARK! As before, the modern Christian God forgives everything infinitely:horrors, that is, and is so malleable (False) that anything Jesus said is of no consequence to that (false) God----in actuality. Actually, Jesus said that you shall know such by its fruit. The fruit of which I am speaking entails a future destruction that is unimaginable short of perhaps that described in the bible, and such will occur for petty bundles of cash. Christianity is a world religion; it is a religion that ---if followed--- instructs people to love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek. However, it does not say "anything is acceptable" to win for country, king, clan, or <ESPECIALLY> family. It is my belief that if you were to find the mark of "THE BEAST," you will find it perverting and/or nullifying Christs core message, which modern Christianity does quite very well.

Thomas Paine Revisited.

You have made some very good and valid points. I think you are right that Christianity has been perverted by many Christians throughout history. Look at the Catholic religion, which seemed to go against almost everything the Bible stood for and other religions too. The simiple message of Jesus Christ is so simple and yet people try to muck it up and it's digusting, to say the least. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the light. Whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life." And you're right, about seeing the fruits. I don't know why people pervert the simple message that Jesus Christ tried to convey to us....maybe it's about power or money or I don't know.....but it's certainly not what Jesus wanted to convey. I think in terms of Christian people in our society, Billy Graham has come the closest to following Jesus Christ as he would want us to. His message is so simple and he has always refused to get gobbled up by the media, etc., who have wanted him to have a "Billy Graham Show," etc., because he was always afraid it would be somehow taken over by "the world." He really has had a wonderful ministry and I'm sure one day when he meets Jesus, he'll say, "Well done, my good and faithful servant."

thomaspainerevisited

10-02-2004, 01:09 AM

Never paid Rev. Billy Gram all that much attention. However, I believe that 99% of the rest of so called televangilists work for the other team, which is not God's.

Thomas Paine Revisited

Syd

10-02-2004, 12:21 PM

Never paid Rev. Billy Gram all that much attention. However, I believe that 99% of the rest of so called televangilists work for the other team, which is not God's.

Thomas Paine Revisited

Recently, I have begun to think you are right. I'm wondering if their whole platform of standing for Jesus Christ is just a facade. It's pretty frightening to imagine that, but I'm starting to look at them differently, thanks to Jay Esbe, of all people. He and I used to be arch enemies and he would scream at me that Bush is Satan and that Christianity is not of God, etc. He gave up on me and then suddently, he seemed to decide to try again with me. It was pretty cool. He showed me some articles and I told him I'd try to keep an open mind. You have no idea how difficult that is for someone like me. I've been raised as a person with rose-colored-glasses plastered on my face and to try to look beyond what I thought was the truth was nearly impossible. But somethow, Jay Esbe kept in there with me, plugging away. A few others on this board have tried too, but they all gave up, basically......people like McGonagle, M_Theory, Maria, Elena, Kim, Cricket and a few others. I'm sure I frustrated the heck out of them and most of them thought I was a "plant," because I'm sure they thought no one could be as naive as I sounded, politically, etc. But as I said, Jay Esbe decided to give me another chance and he has been giving me articles to read, things to broaden my narrow perspective, you might say. Wow, what a flip-out. I've begun to believe that our government is, in fact, involved in attempting to take over the world. I've begun to believe we were responsible for 9/11, in order to get the people to be afraid, etc. Somehow now, the whole world looks different to me now. Do you know what I mean?

thomaspainerevisited

10-02-2004, 03:59 PM

Who am I? I am an "x" ski racer turned soldier turned historian turned policeman. My knowledge of 911 was long before it happened. I wrote of our relationship with the Saudis and what was happening there as well as the explosive potential, which we now have realized--in part. I do not disagree that the event has threatened to reduce our liberties, but it was not courted or staged by our government to reduce our liberties; however, there are some parties that would use our relationship to Saudi Arabia and the tragedy to increase government power for power's sake, that is, over the people here at home.
Actually, the 911 tragedy came about because our businessmen made a lot of money selling arms (buck for the bang), which threatened the countries around Saudi Arabia. Moreover, at the same time our government sought favor with the House of Saud by stregthening it's police state apperatus. Actually, we were bombed long before Kobar Towers at OPM SANG, which was/is the Operations-Plans-Management section of the Amy’s Material Command- logistics section. Well, aiding the Saudis to strengthen there weak/fat nation is OK, for they are open to coersion and attack during the Hajj, but selling thumbscrews, cattleprods, keg irons, etc., etc., was immoral. Why did our government have no strings (i.e., progressive demands) attached to our efforts? Like China during WWII, our politicians saw the boodle bag, so nothing is asked; whereas we demaded much of Briton. GET IT! Well, in Saudi Arabia, we strengthend 1/2 of the House of Saud against the other to draw advantage, so in return we attained a Bin Laden who took up sides with and was aided by the other half, but we don't admit this, for it might stop the boodle bag for certain people. Actually, "WE" don't admit anything, for that "WE" rationalizes anything and everything so long as it benefits its interest. My worry is that while attempting to erect some form of democracy in Iraq we have lost sight of the goal--representative government, that is, because the contract money benefits certain groups. However, trying to pull out of this nose dive, after many in the population balked, we tried to promise the internationalization of oil, which was wise, but I fear too late a measure to recapture a belief that we were there for anything more than enriching certain families whose loyalty is first to the family and secondary to the nation. However, I must note that the current administration was not in power when this fiasco began.
I want to reiterate, we see and believe that which benefits us as a species; the grey matter is usually at the service of less than noble asperations and trying to trick itself (via self-deception) that that which is-- is not.

Thomas Paine Revisited

Bertrand

10-02-2004, 05:39 PM

But as I said, Jay Esbe decided to give me another chance and he has been giving me articles to read, things to broaden my narrow perspective, you might say. Wow, what a flip-out. I've begun to believe that our government is, in fact, involved in attempting to take over the world. I've begun to believe we were responsible for 9/11, in order to get the people to be afraid, etc. Somehow now, the whole world looks different to me now. Do you know what I mean?

Congrats, Syd!

Live and learn, learn and grow. We owe it to ourselves to remain open. Learning is largely dependent on attitude and maintaining in a flexible mode rising above our own affiliations that often puts us in locked boxes. I know it's hard to rise above one's affiliations. However, the truth is that often our enlightenment comes through that process of our rising above our own limitations in the guise of affiliations.

That's why Socrates suggested to his students to maintain an open mind and always to ask questions and not to assume as having the final answers.

I am impressed by what you said in your post. For that is certainly NOT the Syd I have come to know through thousands of your posts. Furthermore, I happen to be among those who felt quite frustrated with you. I am very happy for you. See how great is the E-Grapevine?

Aren't we a lucky generation to have this wonderful tool for expanding our knowledge by maintaining an attitude to learn rarther than freeze in one position in a dynamic world that changes? I'm so glad to have come to this column to read your post. Cheers.

Peace.

Syd

10-06-2004, 09:25 PM

Congrats, Syd!

Live and learn, learn and grow. We owe it to ourselves to remain open. Learning is largely dependent on attitude and maintaining in a flexible mode rising above our own affiliations that often puts us in locked boxes. I know it's hard to rise above one's affiliations. However, the truth is that often our enlightenment comes through that process of our rising above our own limitations in the guise of affiliations.

That's why Socrates suggested to his students to maintain an open mind and always to ask questions and not to assume as having the final answers.

I am impressed by what you said in your post. For that is certainly NOT the Syd I have come to know through thousands of your posts. Furthermore, I happen to be among those who felt quite frustrated with you. I am very happy for you. See how great is the E-Grapevine?

Aren't we a lucky generation to have this wonderful tool for expanding our knowledge by maintaining an attitude to learn rarther than freeze in one position in a dynamic world that changes? I'm so glad to have come to this column to read your post. Cheers.

Peace.

Thanks, Bertrand. It's a weird feeling, realizing I no longer have it all figured out. I think there are just too many unanswered questions and we all owe it to ourselves to be really sure about what we think is the truth. I'm trying to do that. I appreciate your moral support...

cricket

10-07-2004, 07:01 AM

Syd, for real this time?? If I remember correctly havn't you been down this road before? I hope this time you are more comfortable with the reversal. Cricket

Syd

10-07-2004, 11:30 AM

Syd, for real this time?? If I remember correctly havn't you been down this road before? I hope this time you are more comfortable with the reversal. Cricket

My basic core beliefs have not changed, Cricket. I am still a conservative, believing that abortion is wrong, I believe that we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, I beleive in tax cuts for those who pay taxes and I believe that over-taxing does not ever help an economy and I believe in empowering people to be independent of the government for existence, rather than keeping people dependent on the government all their lives.

As far as my political views, with regard to our government, I was brought up to love America and I've believed that this is a great country and we must do everything to protect what we have. I still believe that. But when people like McGonagle, M_Theory, Ellena and Kim brought some things to my attention that I would usually dismiss as liberal bias, I decided to try to look at it with an open mind. I still was not convinced. Then, Esbe brought up a few sites that were rather startling to me and I've been researching some of those areas and I do not have any strong explanations for them. It got me wondering if there really is something bigger going on in our US "government," that we're really not aware of. I've never been one to want to fall for "conspiracy theories," but when you look into some of the events surrounding our country's relationships with other countries and leaders of other countries, when you consider the huge affect the World Bank has on our country's decisions and actions and when you start to realize that the fear of terrorism could eventually lead to the abolishment of our civil liberties, it really gets you thinking that there may be more going on than you realized. That's where I'm at, at this point. I'm skeptical of our "government's" motives and I think we all should be or else we're either being naive or stupid. I don't want to be either of those things.....not when it concerns the future of my family and myself. We all need to be aware of things around us and we all need to evaluate them as critically as possible.

So, in answer to your question, I think I am evolving in my perspective. I still love our country, I still have the same core beliefs, but I think, in the future, we need to be extremely careful about who we elect to lead this great land. I believe we should try to stand behind people who are not wealthy elitists, with questionable backgrounds. Unfortunately, that describes both President Bush and John Kerry.

Bertrand

10-07-2004, 02:59 PM

So, in answer to your question, I think I am evolving in my perspective. I still love our country, I still have the same core beliefs, but I think, in the future, we need to be extremely careful about who we elect to lead this great land. I believe we should try to stand behind people who are not wealthy elitists, with questionable backgrounds. Unfortunately, that describes both President Bush and John Kerry.

I support you and commend you for what you stated above.

The key is to keep an open mind and keep evolving for the better.

That should have nothing to do with affiliations and labels.

What matters is the seeking of truth wherever it comes from.

Enlightment may come only through that process.

Tying your evolvement to persons or to parties is putting obstacles on that path.

Good luck and peace.

cricket

10-07-2004, 08:28 PM

The key then, Syd, if to look at those men in terms of the folks that they will surround themselves with. When I think about Karl Roves (ethical problems of his own in the past...google him for starters) Cheney (secretive, snide, controlling) Wofowitz, (ideologue) Perle, Rumsfeld, Rice (she has not been right about anything yet) those are names ...just for starters!

Syd

10-08-2004, 12:33 AM

thomaspainerevisited

10-08-2004, 02:30 AM

Well Sid please read my September 11th post. I think everyone can gain a little perspective from it; our US media tells us nothing. I wrote most of this post regarding the trouble brewing with Saudi Arabia years before we were attacked, which by the way were for the most part indigenous Saudis. I've gone on think on many things, to include the box I'm currently typing on. Simply, while the lessons involving September 11th are critical if understood, I'm onto "bigger stuff."

Thomas Paine Revisited

Syd

10-08-2004, 07:27 AM

thomaspainerevisited

10-11-2004, 11:50 AM

Well, I'll tell you this. This little box is being used to currently log information on everybody in the USA. You are simply a mathematical formula, or are becoming one, that is, your value is being assessed as to whether you are valuable--to certain people. It's an old game; it's been done before; it cost millions of lives and involved two world wars. God help us- more this time.

thomaspainerevisited

10-16-2004, 10:06 PM

Yes, it is a belief. But keep in mind, the Bible and the facts regarding the existence, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ have never been refuted to this day. If one is to disregard God and Jesus Christ as being the truth, wouldn't it be wise for one to devote a reasonable amount of time researching the Bible to find out for sure whether one beliefs it is valid or not? That's my challenge to you, Thomaspaine. My husband, himself, once a total atheist, decided to disprove Christianity. But knowing that Christianity states that anyone who does not know Jesus Christ will never come to the Father and therefore, never have eternal life. He decided that he owed it to himself to be sure that it really wasn't the truth and he devoted a great deal of time checking it out. He came to realize that it really was the truth. You may find that it isn't the truth to you, but don't you at least owe yourself a chance to be sure that you're wrong? Just a thought...

Well, you could as easily have said that Christ existed as well as he did not exist as the son of God.
The latter is what Nietzsche did. The focus upon Christ's existence has mainly been in his value as a savior. Who wouldn't want to believe there is more in existence that this life. However, few people listen to what Christ had to say about living "this life." I also find it unique that the people who are counted as athiests, such as Voltaire champion the value of man.

Victor Hugo essentially said: "Jesus wept and Voltaire smiled, and from that devine tear and smile man has found much of the grace found in civilization.
Think about that!
TPR

Syd

10-17-2004, 08:47 AM

Well, you could as easily have said that Christ existed as well as he did not exist as the son of God.
The latter is what Nietzsche did. The focus upon Christ's existence has mainly been in his value as a savior. Who wouldn't want to believe there is more in existence that this life. However, few people listen to what Christ had to say about living "this life." I also find it unique that the people who are counted as athiests, such as Voltaire champion the value of man.

Victor Hugo essentially said: "Jesus wept and Voltaire smiled, and from that devine tear and smile man has found much of the grace found in civilization.
Think about that!
TPR

But if you really listen to what Christ had to say, he spoke of what was to come, when we leave this earth. He taught people how to live peacefully with others while on this earth and how to bring others to the knowledge of the hope that is theirs, but he was very explicit about telling that he was going on to prepare a place for us and he assured us that we will be with him.

I have to be honest with you, I am amazed that people feel the need to be "good," if they have no belief in God. What's the point? What is it all for?

"Sartre was an exponent of atheistic existentialism:

"Existence is prior to essence. Man is nothing at birth and throughout his life he is no more than the sum of his past commitments. To believe in anything outside his own will is to be guilty of 'bad Faith.' Existentialist despair and anguish is the acknowledgement that man is condemned to freedom. There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight. He cannot escape choosing."
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Sartre.htm

***If I were not completely convinced that there is a God and that Jesus Christ came down on earth to save those who follow him, I would believe the same things Sartre believed...

thomaspainerevisited

10-17-2004, 08:26 PM

But if you really listen to what Christ had to say, he spoke of what was to come, when we leave this earth. He taught people how to live peacefully with others while on this earth and how to bring others to the knowledge of the hope that is theirs, but he was very explicit about telling that he was going on to prepare a place for """"""us"""""" and he assured us that we will be with him.

I have to be honest with you, I am amazed that people feel the need to be "good," if they have no belief in God. What's the point? What is it all for?

"Sartre was an exponent of atheistic existentialism:

"Existence is prior to essence. Man is nothing at birth and throughout his life he is no more than the sum of his past commitments. To believe in anything outside his own will is to be guilty of 'bad Faith.' Existentialist despair and anguish is the acknowledgement that man is condemned to freedom. There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight. He cannot escape choosing."
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Sartre.htm

***If I were not completely convinced that there is a God and that Jesus Christ came down on earth to save those who follow him, I would believe the same things Sartre believed...

No! Christ said few would enter the kingdom of heaven. "US" is who? Everyone wants to be "US," but few would follow him onto the cross, or even suffer anything to pay the price for admission. And did not Jesus say that he came "to divide"? Christ wasn't nambi bambi, he demanded much. It is only today's POP RE'LIGION' that demands of us a tithing and provides a cracker and grape juice shawmanism to relieve us of our guilt. See: "Marketplace and Christ 's actual anger, which was unique to Christ in "THE HOLY BIBLE."

ON THE NEED TO BE GOOD!
One does not need to believe in God to be good, but only saved, which is a half paradox, for can one be saved if one is not good? WHAT? Rationally, maximizing 'general happiness" so that humans are not pitted against each other so as to minimize physical combat as well as destruction and pain is at the heart of the construction of the social contract. It is a bargin in which the weak and the strong find competition in the zero sum game always pays little dividend for both in the long run, that is, because of a known outcome, which history has told a thousand times: of waste and destruction. Of course, good in this sense is rational (Vulcanish) and not emotional (McCoyish). What?

One does not have to believe in God to see the value of avoiding destruction and waste. See Star Trek's episode Miror, Miror. Smart stuff in the 60's, 70's' I kid you not.

You said:
"Sartre was an exponent of atheistic existentialism:
Remark: OK, if true, but what of it? That's for God to judge. Next!

"Existence is prior to essence.
Man is nothing at birth and throughout his life he is no more than the sum of his past commitments.
Remark: Nothing at birth? Actually, even if you are a Darwinist, man is pretty spectacular, for we have grey matter which marks ourselves capable of conversing and examining. NEXT!

To believe in anything outside his own will is to be guilty of 'bad Faith.' Existentialist despair and anguish is the acknowledgement that man is condemned to freedom. There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight. He cannot escape choosing." Discussed below the next paragraph.

Again: NO GOD! Well, if existentialists want to believe this, then let 'em go ahead. Judge people by their actions; it's up to God to judge from their belief in him. NEXT!

From the paragraph above the last one:
Well, there is something to be said in the last sentence. I'm going to be a little puckish with my answers, for this is deep stuff, and you will get no difinitive answers from me, but only something to ponder.
The song group "Rush" had a great line in one of their songs, which essentially said "If you choose to decide, you still have made a choice." Yes, it's true! If you do not decide or determine your direction, that direction is determined from without. See the inner directed versus outer directed concepts of man in psychology as well as the concept of authenticity, which is the core of modern philosohy as well as anti-fascism, which is woefully neglected, which we owe a debt to the existentialist's ponderings, even if you disagree, for they seek to harden the concepts of human responsibility. Simply, were talking free will here, that is, even if you do not buy into their speel! However, why did God's son even talk to people, that is, if God knew who was naughty and nice, damned and saved, or was he just being nice to afford the option of eternal life in heaven? It's convenient to believe an all knowning --past-present-future-- God knew and knows and thus sanctions who will make out and who will not; who is serf and who is noble, and from this belief you get divine right, which the Hindi, Calvins , and most of religion has strove, that is, to serve the upper class. Deists such as myself don't think God piddles around in our daily lives, that is, other than providing a guide, a lesson plan, from which man can determine his own fate. The "I'm rich, I'm powerful, so I am favored by God stuff versus you are not is bullpucky. It is not responsible liberty; it is licence, by the way, for those in the past Millenium to be wicked. That is why I think Athiests and True Christians have more in common that the the predestinationists and their ilk, and here I agree with Jay Esbe. Also, think of the tune the Beatles sang: Let it Be, that is, if we give head follow it stricktly. If life is determined, then just sit back and let 'em who are favored by God determine all. How convenient! How undemocratic! Well, can one struggle against fate, for if every human or physical action was preordaned by the past, is there such a thing as choice and free will--God here being the God of History ala Hegel? Did every word of mine here come from what I have experienced beforehand, that is, so that I could have done nothing less, that being, my action at this type laptop on October 17th? Is freedom an illusion?

Well, I say "lets just say no" and try to make things better by striving to make things better, and believe that our efforts have a positive effect that is outside of fate. Even such an athiest as William James believed that belief has its own existence, but remember it also has consequences. .

I CHOOSE! I CHOOSE! I CHOOSE! If so, does it demean God and all those who believe in revelation that little piddle ol you and I have the audacity to go against the tumblers of that which is preordaned?

There you go!

OH, my faith as well as Lincoln's and too many to count is that man is the creation of God. Therefore, being the creator's creation he has inherent value. This is, however, still a faith, but I also see the utiltarianism in that belief.

OH, and it is on this faith which was drawn from Christianity that I believe makes this a Christian nation or more aptly put, a nation under God. However, this is, of course, my opinion.

TPR

Syd

10-17-2004, 10:55 PM

TPR wrote:
>>No! Christ said few would enter the kingdom of heaven. "US" is who? Everyone wants to be "US," but few would follow him onto the cross, or even suffer anything to pay the price for admission. And did not Jesus say that he came "to divide"? Christ wasn't nambi bambi, he demanded much. It is only today's POP RE'LIGION' that demands of us a tithing and provides a cracker and grape juice shawmanism to relieve us of our guilt. See: "Marketplace and Christ 's actual anger, which was unique to Christ in "THE HOLY BIBLE."<<

I think many people try to overranalyze the Bible and Jesus' words and many people end up complicating His rather simple message. He said, "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except by me." Jesus realized that it would be difficult for people to turn away from the allure that Satan holds for them in this world and instead, turn towards the light, which is Jesus Christ. God allowed Satan to have control over the world "for a little while" and you can see Satan's works all around you---greed, drugs, promiscuity, adultery, drunkenness, pedophilia, abortion, etc., etc., etc. It's amazing in a world so full of so many self-gratifying pleasures, that a person would decided to turn their back on the sinful pleasures the world offers and instead, try every day to follow Jesus. But Jesus asks for us to give up our old ways and purify ourselves through his perfect blood which was shed for us. It's not an easy thing for a mortal man to do----every day we are bombarded with temptations, hoping we will be torn from Jesus' fold. And every day we resist those temptations, we become farther and farther away from the "world," so to speak. Jesus tells us we are forgiven, by His grace and we are to sin no more. He knows we are human and we will continue to sin, but He asks us to live a life worthy of being called His beloved. There is nothing we can do to be "good" in God's eyes. We are miserable, sinful beings, except that Jesus died for those sins and when we decided to come into God's family, God accepts us only through the blood that Jesus shed for us. I explain to people that that's what is meant by, "In Jesus' Name." God is so holy and pure and He cannot see sin or impurity, so that is why in the Old Testament, people had to sacrifice the blood of innocent animals, for their sins. Jesus became the embodiment of the innocent animals and through his shed blood, we are able to come to God. So it's as if we're saying to God, "God, I take on Jesus' name, just as a wife would take on her husband's name." I am no longer this sinful being coming to you.....I come to you as one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice for my sins and I live for Him. If we sin, we go to God and show Him our contrite heart. You can't fake out God. He knows our hearts. Read the Psalms and you can see how David cried out to God. God knew his heart was in the right place. We have to try every day to have communion with God and we have a better picture of what God is like because of knowing what Jesus was like while he was on earth.

That psychologist, William James, seemed to be a very sad person. I realize he was an atheist and I'm not surprised that he was constantly searching for some kind of "truth" and never seemed to be able to find it. When people do not have the Lord in their hearts, they have a huge hole inside them that never seems to be able to be filled.....an emptiness, searching for meaning and never finding any answers...never finding their truth. There is only one truth and each of us needs to decide what is the truth. Either Jesus Christ lived on earth and was ressurected or he didn't. I believe he lived on this earth and he stated that he and the Father were one, which means he was God incarnate. He died on that Cross for those who love Him and decide to follow Him. We are all given that choice....it's what we do with that choice that decides our fate. Yes, I do think that God knows everything...who will come to Him and who won't. But he doesn't want a bunch of puppets. He wants people who freely choose to turn their backs on the "world" and decide, on their own, to come to Him.

thomaspainerevisited

10-17-2004, 11:58 PM

Syd

10-18-2004, 12:07 AM

Syd, I'll reply to your post tommorow. Honest! I'm tired right now, that is, I'm both sorrowful and totally drained. I just replied to Mr. Feinberg's bloodthirsty seemingly beastly irrationality, and that was enough for me in this forum tonight. His remarks made me want to watch a good old fashioned Frank Capra type of movie, that is, where people are much better humans.

TPR

I know what you mean. I'm the same way. Sometimes I like to watch 'It's a Wonderful Life" or "The Sound of Music" or some of my other "feel good" movies that make me see the goodness in people, even if it is very rare in real life.

Have a good night's rest. Talk to you tomorrow. I enjoy our conversations very much...

Syd

PS...I think I'll hit the sack too...

thomaspainerevisited

10-25-2004, 01:09 AM

Sorry, since nobody is posting in here, I'd thought I'd do a bump up. TPR

thomaspainerevisited

10-29-2004, 04:31 AM

REPLY TO SYD:

TPR wrote:
>>No! Christ said few would enter the kingdom of heaven. "US" is who? Everyone wants to be "US," but few would follow him onto the cross, or even suffer anything to pay the price for admission. And did not Jesus say that he came "to divide"? Christ wasn't nambi bambi, he demanded much. It is only today's POP RE'LIGION' that demands of us a tithing and provides a cracker and grape juice shawmanism to relieve us of our guilt. See: "Marketplace” and Jesus Christ’s actual anger, which was unique to Jesus Christ in "THE HOLY BIBLE."

SYD: I think many people try to overanalyze the Bible and Jesus' words and many people end up complicating His rather simple message. He said, "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except by me."

TPR:
I AM=?
Does that mean a simple belief in Christ’s existence, or does it mean something more? Does that mean catching the parables because your ears as well as your heart are open? Does that mean that one must walk before God to be in the Kingdom entirely? Didn’t Christ say there were many mansions in God’s house?
OH, go to my view of God as Existence—how can you love more?
OH, II basic rules: Love God, Love thyself and thy neighbor as thyself.
Except by me = Child Baptism? Just ponder!

Jesus realized that it would be difficult for people to turn away from the allure that Satan holds for them in this world and instead, turn towards the light, which is Jesus Christ. God allowed Satan to have control over the world "for a little while" and you can see Satan's works all around you---greed, drugs, promiscuity, adultery, drunkenness, pedophilia, abortion, etc., etc., etc.

TPR:
Little comment: Little while? Try all of human history—so far.

It's amazing in a world so full of so many self-gratifying pleasures, that a person would decided to turn their back on the sinful pleasures the world offers and instead, try every day to follow Jesus.

TPR:
Well, even an atheist or agnostic would do so if he held a large enough world view, for death as well as waste are naturally ---in my humble opinion---eschewed by the logical mind. This is a larger view of life; it is a view, which is of utilitarianism and the value of happiness amongst mankind. However, a belief in God as creator helps in the conception of endowment of value, for man then is endowed by his creator with……………..

SYD: But Jesus asks for us to give up our old ways and purify ourselves through his perfect blood which was shed for us.
TPR: Perfect Blood = ? Isn’t this a metaphor for “truly” noble sacrifice?
See example of Abraham.
The Bismarck government spoke of Blood and Soil. (NOT SAME: Nuff said!)

SYD:
It's not an easy thing for a mortal man to do----every day we are bombarded with temptations, hoping we will be torn from Jesus' fold. And every day we resist those temptations, we become farther and farther away from the "world," so to speak. Jesus tells us we are forgiven, by His grace and we are to sin no more. He knows we are human and we will continue to sin, but He asks us to live a life worthy of being called His beloved.

TPR: OK. I FIND IT USEFUL TO BE OF BOTH EVIL AND GOOD, AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS THE MIND GRASPS BOTH AND SETS BOTH IN THE BRAIN CHEMICALLY, so I advocate being evil--and good, which is to have knowledge of the world. The crux is action--for good and not for evil. IMHO! In my humble opinion.

SYD: There is nothing ((((we can do)))))) to be "good" in God's eyes.

TPR: Perhaps, for if you are attempting to do good to “appear” good in God’s eyes then your motive is what? I bet less than honorable. Christ said let your no be no and your yes be yes----which is of authenticity, and not attempting to sit in the 1st pew like the hypocrites----IMHO, or in my humble opinion.

SYD:
We are miserable, sinful beings, except that Jesus died for those sins and when we decided to come into God's family, God accepts us only through the blood that Jesus shed for us. I explain to people that that's what is meant by, "In Jesus' Name."

TPR: I GO BACK AND FOURTH BETWEEN LOCKE, AQUINAS, AND ROUSSEAU—and more. .

SYD: God is so holy and pure and “””””He cannot see sin or impurity,””””””

TPR: Bullpucky! God sees all! Not a sparrow falls—not a hair on your head is not numbered, etc—in the NOW! Thus—GOD! Also, Genesis note the tree of knowledge was of good and evil, thus approaching God, but of course this might be a trick, for the snake thus said so. I didn’t think so, but then again I’m with the snake on this one, that is, after the fall of man knowing about good and bad comes in handy to avoid the latter and seek the former.

SYD: so that is why in the Old Testament, people had to sacrifice the blood of innocent animals, for their sins. Jesus became the embodiment of the innocent animals and through his shed blood, we are able to come to God.

TPR: You lost me here, but don’t try to find me on this point, unless you have “really good stuff.”

So it's as if we're saying to God, "God, I take on Jesus' name, just as a wife would take on her husband's name." I am no longer this sinful being coming to you.....I come to you as one who accepts Jesus' sacrifice for my sins and I live for Him. If we sin, we go to God and show Him our contrite heart. You can't fake out God. He knows our hearts. Read the Psalms and you can see how David cried out to God. God knew his heart was in the right place. We have to try every day to have communion with God and we have a better picture of what God is like because of knowing what Jesus was like while he was on earth.

TPR:
OK SYD: I do not fault your beliefs, but remember this; one of the problems with Christianity is that many want to tell you how to approach the Kingdom. Didn’t Christ say THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU? YES! Terrified Christians attempt self-assurance through indoctrination of others to convince themselves—being outer-directed if it were not for the fact of Blind Folded Fear (Stole from T.J.), but is not the true that if THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU, that the true Christian does not demand, but seeks to guide, to ignite and grow in self-discovery of truth in another, which is to aid to “Enlighten?”

SYD:
That psychologist, William James, seemed to be a very sad person. I realize he was an atheist and I'm not surprised that he was constantly searching for some kind of "truth" and never seemed to be able to find it. When people do not have the Lord in their hearts, they have a huge hole inside them that never seems to be able to be filled.....an emptiness, searching for meaning and never finding any answers...never finding their truth. There is only one truth and each of us needs to decide what the truth is.

TPR: SEE, Jack Palance as Curly in “City Slickers” hold up his finger. Pretty Profound! IMHO!

SYD: Either Jesus Christ lived on earth and was resurrected or he didn't. I believe he lived on this earth and he stated that he and the Father were one, which means he was God incarnate.

TPR: ALSO MAN AND HOLY GHOST—See: Trinity, and good luck trying to get a handle on this stuff. Faith comes in here---strongly.

SYD: He died on that Cross for those who love Him and decide to follow Him. We are all given that choice....it's what we do with that choice that decides our fate.

TPR: He died on the Cross for “EVERYMAN” and “EVERYWOMAN. ” This does not mean that people will not hear and see. IMHO!

SYD: Yes, I do think that God knows everything...who will come to Him and who won't. But he doesn't want a bunch of puppets.

TPR: Question: if God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, and this is determined beforehand, then fate has predestined us from a God’s eye view, so are we not puppets from that perspective? I won’t dribble on with philosophy on this. I just ask you to think on this yourself and search out material.

SYD: He wants people who freely choose to turn their backs on the "world" and decide, on their own, to come to Him.

TPR’S REPLY: I don’t want to turn my back on the world; I want to change it for the better. Christ does not demand the skeptic or the ascetic man, but much ---much---more. Echoed in such words SYD is the defilement of the Demos, of the Republic, by the attempting Theocracy working for the actual Plutocracy.---ON THIS POINT--------HERE!

I hope you found something I said helpful. Thomas Paine Revisited

thomaspainerevisited

11-04-2004, 05:15 AM

HERE'S FOR A BUMP UP!

OH, here are some guys who voted and think they made a difference.

I reminded 'em that they were Canadians. They told me to "TAKE OFF HOSER."

Syd

11-04-2004, 11:34 AM

I wrote:>> God is so holy and pure and “””””He cannot see sin or impurity,””””””

TPR wrote: >> Bullpucky! God sees all! Not a sparrow falls—not a hair on your head is not numbered, etc—in the NOW! Thus—GOD! Also, Genesis note the tree of knowledge was of good and evil, thus approaching God, but of course this might be a trick, for the snake thus said so. I didn’t think so, but then again I’m with the snake on this one, that is, after the fall of man knowing about good and bad comes in handy to avoid the latter and seek the former.

***We can only have communion with God through Jesus Christ, who was the perfect sacrifice for our sin, just as those in the Old Testament had to bring innocent animals to God to be sacrificed for their sins. God can't be made into something different than the Bible says He is. If people really want to know WHO God is, they need to study everything that Jesus said and did while he was on earth because He clearly stated that, "I and the Father are One" and that "No one comes to the Father except by me." We can pretend that God thinks this or thinks that, but we're actually only fooling ourselves if we haven't really searched the Bible to find out exactly what Jesus said or did.

The thing is, all of the "nice" things Jesus talks about in the Bible that people should do.....mean nothing without a relationship with the Father. Sure, it's nice to be nice to people, but there are even people who are Satanists who are "nice." That isn't enough. Good works should be the outcome of a close, personal relationship with the God of the Universe and the only way to have a relationship with him is through faith in Jesus Christ, who died on that cross for those who understand who he is and commit their lives to following him. That sounds very easy to say...."follow Him," but it involves a lifetime of committing oneself to pursuing a relationship with Jesus Christ. The more a person comes to know Jesus, the more one wants and needs to do things that would be pleasing to him. He changes our hearts and makes us want to turn our backs on the evils that Satan dangles before us. Also, the Bible doesn't open up to those who do not have a relationship with Jesus. It's really mystical, but it's true. Once a person starts to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ, the Bible becomes clear to them, where once it was just a bunch of words.

TPR:
OK SYD: I do not fault your beliefs, but remember this; one of the problems with Christianity is that many want to tell you how to approach the Kingdom. Didn’t Christ say THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU? YES! Terrified Christians attempt self-assurance through indoctrination of others to convince themselves—being outer-directed if it were not for the fact of Blind Folded Fear (Stole from T.J.), but is not the true that if THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU, that the true Christian does not demand, but seeks to guide, to ignite and grow in self-discovery of truth in another, which is to aid to “Enlighten?”

***But Jesus tells his followers to go out and preach the Good News to everyone. If you can imagine that the Bible is the only truth and those who have found that to be true are trying to tell people this incredible miracle they've found. People wouldn't fault someone who has just found the cure for cancer, if they were going everywhere they could to tell people about this great find. And yet, God offers eternal life for those who know Jesus Christ. Surely "eternal life" is far greater than a long life on earth, right?

TPR WROTE: << Question: if God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, and this is determined beforehand, then fate has predestined us from a God’s eye view, so are we not puppets from that perspective? I won’t dribble on with philosophy on this. I just ask you to think on this yourself and search out material.

***If you try to imagine that God is sooooo incredibly big and we can't possibly imagine the mind of God or how he was able to do all that he has done.....created the universe and all that's in it. Out of love, he decided to create mankind and he wanted to give them free will, so that they would have the choice to either choose Him or Saten (evil). Since he knows everything, he knows who will choose Him but He wants us to come to Him willingly, not as puppets.

TPR’S REPLY: I don’t want to turn my back on the world; I want to change it for the better. Christ does not demand the skeptic or the ascetic man, but much ---much---more. Echoed in such words SYD is the defilement of the Demos, of the Republic, by the attempting Theocracy working for the actual Plutocracy.---ON THIS POINT--------HERE!

***When I say, "turning our backs on the world" I mean turning our backs on worldly things that are of Satan. That is a difficult thing for people to do because they are all around us and they are very attractive and as humans, we are drawn to them. But if one imagines that this world is only temporal, they come to realize that this world is not what it's all about. The life after this, with the Father, is what those who know Jesus Christ are waiting for.

I hope you found something I said helpful. Thomas Paine Revisited

thomaspainerevisited

11-04-2004, 08:28 PM

Getbacktoyoulateronthissyd.

Hey, if you want to read something interesting I'll send it to you.

It's silly, proufound, and disturbing. You make up your own mind.

OH, it's 12 or 13 megabites--with pictures.

TPR

Syd

11-05-2004, 08:08 AM

Syd

11-15-2004, 07:28 AM

thomaspainerevisited

11-15-2004, 09:17 AM

Sure I sent it to you. SGUR correct?
:confused:

If not, then someone has played a game, for I've also got spam, and my Email is private, so I'll have to change it, that is, to avoid all the little buggies--if they come.

Well, Email me again, and I'll try again.

TPR

Syd

11-15-2004, 11:00 AM

thomaspainerevisited

11-15-2004, 12:40 PM

Already Emailed you Syd. A day ago. Didn't you get it?

Syd

11-15-2004, 11:11 PM

Already Emailed you Syd. A day ago. Didn't you get it?

No, I didn't receive anything with links in it, etc. Can't you send it again?

Syd

Syd

09-02-2005, 08:52 AM

Bump

What????

thomaspainerevisited

12-01-2005, 08:48 PM

Bump, so some people might see this.