What Doesn't Belong to us

[InLove]

Flow---

Are you hiring?

InPeace,
InLove

[Francis king]

any chance of a loan, flow..?

[flowperson]

See what happens when you get lucky and get a little money ? Even your friends want to work for you or become debtors. I guess undermining the existing social order has something to do with that syndrome...huh ? Try as I might not to, I still seem to learn new things about my fellow humans each day that I'm walking around and breathing

flow....

[InLove]

It's not the money, flow--really....

[seattlegal]

I would like to point out that "taking offence" was spoken by Jesus of an escalating factor leading up to the tribulation:

Originally Posted by Matt 24

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

It seems that readily taking offence can quickly lead towards a downward spiral of hate and lawlessness, leading towards a decrease in love.
An increase in hate and a decrease in love can become a pit that can be difficult to get out of, taking into account what the Buddha had to say about it:

Originally Posted by DHAMMAPADA 1:5

5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.

I certainly hope that no one takes offence to my posting religious scriptures here!

[Paladin]

SG,

Your quotes seem very appropriate to me and quite ecumenical as well. There are many who may take offense, but I tell you now they are of the extreme curmudgeon variety.

Peace
Mark

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

SG,

Your quotes seem very appropriate to me and quite ecumenical as well. There are many who may take offense, but I tell you now they are of the extreme curmudgeon variety.

Peace
Mark

Oops! I forgot to put a green smiley face at the end of my post for those of the curmudgeon persuation! *slaps forehead* {I guess it wasn't quite as ecumenical as I hoped it to be. Can't be excluding the curmudgeons!}

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Cyberpi:

I don't work because I inherited hundreds of milions of dollars from my grandparents and I spend my entire life these days working hard to undermine the existing social order. Nice try though.

fllow....

Sounds like you are working for something. Why do you say nice try... what do you think I am trying to do?

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by InLove

It's not the money, flow--really....

Hey...don't tell JH about us, I've got enough enemies.

I really do like your tastes in music the mostest.

Besides...money can only buy stuff...and that's what the world's really about these days...buying stuff, having stuff, and replacing old stuff with more expensive new stuff and going into debt to acquire more stuff that I don't need because the media has convinced me that it's patriotic to do so.

Do you think that's where the term "stuff it" comes from ?

I've decided that money is really a curse and I'm devising plans to give my megamilllions away as soon as possible and go back to WORK as a political consultant. Talk about undermining the existing social order !

flow....

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Francis king

if u come into my house in the middle of the night and attack me with a meat cleaver, I will try my best to prevent myself from injury... if u call me a fool on a forum, I am happy enough to have evoked a response from u, and even if u slate me and resort to calling me names, I will neither hold it against u or sit at home worrying about it...I think flow has the right idea about avoiding confrontations, if that is what flow does, as ultimately, a confrontation means u attack or defend, whereas turning on ur heels and heading for the hills means u'll live to see another day... even the "saints" are "guilty" of not sticking up for their beliefs when it means death- I'm thinking of peter after the crucifixion...

as for looking away when someone commits a sin, who determines what is sin, and who decides its ur place to intervene? didnt jesus say something about those being without sin casting the first stone? there but for the grace of god goes u...

I consider: To condemn on a forum would be to censure. Casting stones would be the equivalent of deleting posts or banning people from posting. Personally I have absolutely no interest in condemning anyone, and it is also not my forum. So lets differentiate between reading someone's words and being stirred by them versus condemning someone for their words or actions.

There are maybe a few sins a person could commit over a forum. But considering all sins, realize that while there is a perpetrator (the sinner), there is also a victim of the sin. It is the victim that I would rightfully stand up for and get involved for. It could be my own judgement by the golden rule: doing for my neighbor as I would have my neighbor do for me. If I took action I would care about the perpetrator, and I do not wish to harm him/her, but I also care about the victim. So if a person commits a sin then I consider it is my duty to oppose the person by a full range of options. I have looked away before and I feel it was wrong.

If I were purely an animal in the wild as a prey, I understand there is a "Fight versus Flight" decision. The 'fight' might be throwing stones, or otherwise physically opposing the predator. The 'flight' might be running away but also to hide, evade, play dead, or outright lie, etc... It does NOT behoove either the predator or the prey to communicate with each other. Any pleas for mercy are ignored... the predator is not going to suddenly develop a conscious and feel sorry for the prey. At best the prey might call for help from others. I generally consider God's will to be the complete opposite of both "fight" and "flight". So when someone says that 'love' is the opposite of 'hate' with a focus on NOT fighting or attacking someone, I look to see if 'apathy' is not the real motivation. I find behind the apathy is a real desire to think of oneself rather than to think of others, so it is a similar motivation as those who would directly commit a sin. Consider for example the bank wants to take money from people just as bad as the robbers that come looking to take money... the robber is probably guilty of 'hatred' but a bank executive may be guilty of 'apathy' to iniquity.

So in some important ways I consider the many methods of 'flight' away from sinners to be sinful. In the bible OT, I find that sin or guilt offerings involve the people associated with the person that directly commits the sin. So if my family or neighbors commit a sin it is as if I committed a sin too. I suggest that a person can also be guilty for what a person does NOT do. Consider in the parable from Jesus of the separation of goats and sheep that in the judgement of heaven or hell it appears that the wide and easy path is for those who did NOT do something for others. So I consider the apathetic response to sin is also a crime. I realize the focus is on not throwing stones at an alledged perpetrator, but what of disregarding the victim? Of future victims? I also know of no way to help any perpetrator or sinner except to personally get involved.

I think there is a lot of apathy in the world for a number of reasons. There is a reliance on government, the lawmakers, police, and courts to instill social order. So should people put down the judgement and condemnation the government provides the people as a service, while also benefitting from it? I don't know about throwing stones, but a fair number of people are living in prisons. Many were apprehended by force using weapons. Are the police or judges the cause of increasing hatred in the world? Should they be avoiding conflict and controversy? I say NO. They are public servants. I only think government needs to be under a far tigher grip of the people, each individual. I submit that the making of laws, which determines what a SIN is, needs to be more distributed among the individuals of any group of people. I think the right way forward with government is to seek far greater representation by direct democracy. Quite simply, "No taxation without representation". So to answer your question of who determines what a SIN is... I submit that it needs to be everyone. Surely as a result there will be controversy.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Cyberpi:

I don't work because I inherited hundreds of milions of dollars from my grandparents.

fllow....

You being sarcastic or serious? Cause if serious we are kinda in the same boat.... Although I choose to continue work... (what an idiot...) lol.

[Francis king]

cyberpi, u consider-the many methods of 'flight' away from sinners to be sinful, and say that -In the bible OT, u find that sin or guilt offerings involve the people associated with the person that directly commits the sin, and say- So if my family or neighbors commit a sin it is as if I committed a sin too.

-but does that sin really belong to u? If your neighbour steals my sheep, unless u help him, or unless he tells u about it and asks u to keep quiet in exchange for a few free sheep, where is your sin? Should your sin be that u did not recognise ur neighbours need and give him ur own sheep? What if he has loads of sheep already, but just enjoys stealing the sheep of others?

if u kill him becuase he is a sheep rustler, unless they are ur sheep why do u care? Would not the sin be upon u, for his death, or would u just be an agent of the ppl, doing the right thing, and absolved by the ppl?

" So should people put down the judgement and condemnation the government provides the people as a service, while also benefitting from it?"

I dont think they do benefit from it, overall, victims or perps, and I thought the idea of imprisonment was containment and rehabilitation, rather than judgement and condemnation.

"Are the police or judges the cause of increasing hatred in the world?", in the world of the criminal, yes, they are.

"Should they be avoiding conflict and controversy?"

yes they should. They should be mediators, educators, and protectors, serving the people, rather than serving the interests of the state.

you submit- "that the making of laws, which determines what a SIN is, needs to be more distributed among the individuals of any group of people", and I agree, although I wouldn't let any overall group have a majority, becuase then there is no democracy.

So to answer my question of who determines what a SIN is... u submit that it needs to be everyone, whereas I think the only judge should be the individual, and not his neighbour.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

You being sarcastic or serious? Cause if serious we are kinda in the same boat.... Although I choose to continue work... (what an idiot...) lol.

Very sarcastic, which isn't my usual style. But I believed that the questions asked of me required this sort of response. If it offended anyone, I regret that, but it all fits in with my overall philosophy that life's really a joke and that the more we learn to laugh at it, the better off we are.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Which one of the following is a personal attack?

A. You're stupid.

B. You seem stupid.

Answer: A. B is merely a personal observation.

It's entirely possible, and quite easy really, to phrase anything, no matter how derogatory or perjoritive, in such a way that it is not a personal attack.

Chris

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Which one of the following is a personal attack?

A. You're stupid.

B. You seem stupid.

Answer: A. B is merely a personal observation.

It's entirely possible, and quite easy really, to phrase anything, no matter how derogatory or perjoritive, in such a way that it is not a personal attack.

Chris

You know Chris, even option A could be looked upon as an expression of pain rather than attack. Now don't get me wrong, I would probably see it as you do but I can't help but think to myself that anyone doing that has got to be suffering in some way and is reacting to something he only thinks he sees in me. In this case either he sees a reflection of a false image, one that might be haunting his own self image or there is the possibilty that he has been speaking to my ex-wife.

Peace
Mark