|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ron C. de Weijze
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:37 pm Post subject: luck |
 |
|
I find this a very interesting discussion. It could have easily turned into something quite tacky (right word?) but luckily it didn't - so far.
Commitment isn't something heroically put forward from the depths of one's soul as if nobody else is involved ('souvereignty'). There is 'macro-penetration' (a word my prof used) that makes someone stubborn in the face of people who disagree and want him to say or do otherwise. Like Vanunu, who must have felt backed up by people seeing things his way or who put their ideas into his mind in the first place, for example the RC church (that is protecting him now). Basically this is what politics and party-ism are all about.
So whereever people are treating each other disrespectfully, there are really two groups (or masses) each with their own definition of the situation, opposing each other, unable to make 'the other' see the light.
This must be where self-reference (Gödel) and circular logic kick in. There is no more reason for 'out-of-box' thinking and the mental attitude polarizes towards the extreme side of the own party. When lucky it can be the 'middle of the road' of this own party but still, there is no balance with the outside world. Two worlds instead of one world 8-| .
So where does any feedback, from 'the other' party or from the inside, pain, stay? Why do people get narcotized and put down their fighting spirit for the benifit of all? The Liliths would say, I guess, because of selfishness and addiction to power. Perhaps in a way that is true, but then just because there is a limit to the Élan Vital of every life, that is finite.
So we settle, if we get the chance to be in profit, including our children and our childrens children. Selfish in the light of fear of death. Anything else would be not having lived. Unless you belong to the unlucky ones who missed their chance or whose chance wore out over generations.
Could it be so sad? Nahh.. 8-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Twain,
| Quote: |
"love is utterly selfish" but "selfless is denial of self"
"So human creates god, so god creates human..." etc.
Hate is love and love is hate? Will one survive without the other if "baby-love" is simply a circle-of-life survival mechinism? Ying me up my yang someboby!
|
I think you misunderstand.
Symbiotic love as in babylove, as in selfish i.e. needed to be a person, but warm, secure and as good as one with mom, safe.
Selfless as in denying you have the need to be acknowledged and responded to as a person and to your act of giving.
Humans invent god but turn it around and claim god created them.
Hate is love denied and love of what one recognises becomes hate for that which is different, associated with bad feelings. etc.(well they are just abstractions and i can play around with them as i please, strong like, strong dislike. But what you first loved you can come to hate. Like too much of your favourite candy, liqor, food. One pukingsession and you'll hate the stuff.)
Babies die if you just feed them and never give them human touch etc. If they just had a bit more, just enough to survive like in overcrowded war victim orphant houses, they f.i. have a considerable difference in IQ at a later age(lower than kids from their agegroup. (Also real mothermilk makes a difference of 10 points. Just additional information)).
Babies thrive if you give them lots, not materialism meaning if there is little to feed them on they will still pull through.
Why is the ego already damaged?
Were does the coping with painfull realities start.
Who decides what shape that reality has, how painfull it becomes, and learns the little person to cope with it.
Smack the kid to toughen it up for the hard knocks it will have to endure later in live.
Those kids later still consider their parents the worst life had to offer if they compare, and that kind of motive severely twisted and devoid of reality.
(most grown-ups do not even consider kids to be persons)
Kids will adjust with the survival strategie that they think works.
It establishes in the emotion(body) like a mold.
Meaning: you may know it's not the case, not the same anymore, but it still feels the same and sometimes even the reactions just come triggered. That's what the ego tries to come to terms with, as a plaster, a short term solution, or if better developed as a caring and protective "I."
Ego is however another word for grown-up/parent/caretaker and the imprint it left you as a child to have an awareness of yourself and a way to deal with problems/reality.
Some people have very little sense of ego/I.
So also few ways of dealing with emotions and little understanding/grip on patterns.
Pattern awareness and retracing. Having received Good parenting and a Happy childhood is a real advantage.
Imagine no good memories or even when good happens receiving it with distrust!(Also trauma can seriously damage your cognitiv reception and even your hormonal and neuron responses, a pattern of alertness builds, overreaction. It becomes structural.)
You threw everything in a big summing up.And i'm not going to go in any alterego or god knows what else comes in those theories and with those terms.
It's wise not to compare yourselve to others in derogatory terms or to have high expectations. That allready catches half the compensating mechanism mess you summed up. 
The other can be caught by being compassionate to yourself and your surroundings.
I love Budha. Bamyan lives on! :-D
Yep, pain is a definit signal. I could voice that same regret.
But "I" building, taking care, be your own protector is a slow process.
It's easy to hit a stage were you are just unfamiliar with feelings or clueless as how to deal with that newness.
(we mostly take it for granted that everybody has had awareness of all the feelings and correct responses to them i.e. also the correct way to ask for help etc. Though as an extreme example(mostly it's even simpler feelings) how many of us know what abject terror or absolute power feels like or can even relate to that?)
If you think bad of yourself you come to hate yourself. Easy to follow if you catch my drift.
Alcohol or addiction aversion therapy is based on the same principle.
I can also relate to those people that just give up.
Where's the break?
You can only get sofar on your own.
Or just lack the energy if your environment is unresponsive.
Your fight seems to be against windmills.
Or your not taking seriously or you end up in the funnyfarm as a paranoid or taken to family in the countryside.(muslimah in europe that go against the grain)
All your left with is a feeling that it's not fair that recedes to numbness and the gray of everyday selflessness.
There's another pattern and awareness.
Woman can relate to being treated as a child.(i.e. not a person)
For change you need feedback, a bone to chew, an adversary, and positive reinforcement, see the change happen and an alternative.
Having an impact, be selfishly recognized.
Power comes from conviction and then committing to it.
Selfdoubt erodes that.
And lots of people will project their conviction in religion ot another ideology as an anker.
(recall the chinese christians (or also western christians)that funded extreme islam(in palestina) in indonesia because they thought they had to be the good guys because they also believed in god!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
In another thread I was talking about the notion of god giving aids as a punishment and joking about the need for "a godsized rubber"
| Quote: |
| 'macro-penetration' |
tacky
Hi ron,
go carefull here.
most religions or extreme ideologies lack the notion of selfreference.
As a semantic notion or inbuild system of showing responsibility(accountability) for any action meaning opposite to quoting verse as explantion or rational.
Circular logic comes with the package.>
He was the offering so that's why we kill a sheep. Why else would we kill a sheep.
Socialism is good for all the people. So all the good people are socialists.
>so if your not a (...) your not(...)
mostly it comes down to believer/practioner and no-good/bad/a threath.
The post-modern notion turned the old way of understanding self-reference into circular logic.
What did happen to the contribution we gave?
A)Well so and so much , given by so and so went to, this and that.
B)Things happened to the contribution, for you lot.(duh,and we also know this as politics or tax money)
This and that(incomplete)
or
so and so much (true or not whose to say)
but no clear notion on exactly what amount given by whom went to what. But acceptabel as the way of things. And most people will leave it at that.
Does god exist
A)this and that ad infinitum ( ever more imput necessary)incomplete
or
B)visions, here say
true or not
and that seems to point to the notion that the input of us humans on a god idea connects us to the cosmos and laws of nature, exactly because god cannot be proven.
Also sounds acceptable and most people will leave it at that, but no prove on even the simplest factualness after the first fact, can be given.
(So that is why that notion of people being capable of awareness of past, present and future is crucial in Bergsons cosmologic theory. No human can denie that one. That's the first fact and after that it goes unprovable.-fantasy,imagination,creativity-)
And to post-modernists that makes it even more true.
Because isn't that exactly what Gödel said!
He said: mathematics only, for the use thereof.
Not:Use as a suppository in any other way and turn into a sheep.
Religion gives us the acceptance of the blackbox.
A system of which we do not question the workings because it is so and we are to immersed. And learned the hard way to not even step out of to question it.(chop there went your head)
The 'moral' code: do not question how or why but do or die.
Lies for kids give us the capacity to take in bigger lies. Santa claus, politics, tax, religion.
Just for fun:
When in panic or in doubt'
run in circles scream and shout!
Message on the way ron.
But Gödel should not be used for these kind of notions, because my example is all it establishes.
Last edited by lilith on Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:14 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lust for life. Absense of threat, experienced, percieved or real.
The aforism(some millennia old philosopher, and one killed by the church):
Life goes on till you die
if you die there's no more life
So there's no use(or reason) in thinking on death
therefore we think on life and the avoidance of suffering.
that's what thinking of death comes down to.
Not thinking on the nature of life and everything, because your head will be chopped of, that's religion.
Meaning that living and wondering comes natural, but that it gets stopped in it's tracks.
Instead of sending kids of in the questioning age to a philosophyworkshop suited to their age and short attentionspan, we say: 'because' or 'I say so' or in some way get them to stop asking questions.
Let them explore. One lady does this by gathering everything dangerous and safe in the house and letting the kid explore. Never had any silly accidents after that in the house or need to say: NO
Most parents however react to her method with a look of fear: "isn't that dangerous?"
Kids are very sensitive and their paintreshhold really low so they will not cut themselves to ribbons on sharp implements but instead allready on the slightest touch make the proper connection; Pain is a warning not to persist in that behaviour or stay in the situation.
Of course it's supervised.
The povertytrap is a real one and maintained by a black box system.
If it takes a lot of hard work to make a tiny improvement, then the blow comes all the harder if just another tiny thing can make all that hard work for naught.
Thinking on the movie with Ophrah Winfrey on life in the projects and that mom that wants to improve life.
The weirdest man Vanunu.
His notion of living in the states and wanting a romantic family.
R.C. seems to fit the profile, confession, forgiving sin, poor palestinians, peace for the world, familylife. Serious brainwash.
How does that compare to the dutch nuclear scientist that gave Khan additional deliveries for 'experiments'.
The former fretted (more on how to continue the good life in Australia, and not being found out, there was quite some resentment in the reflection on the paper starting the investigation on his character etc.)the latter not fretting at all given the notion of information making the world safe.
Vanunu however asked a lot of money for his article and was convinced 'Cindy' digged him by just a few brief encounters in the street. Doesn't leave much credibility on the motivation in saving the world if you ask me, more man of the world with a power addiction, notably with a sense of having the safety of the world in his hands.(Jezus notions, saving all from the devil)
A time when everything seemed stable to our dutch scientist.
Anarchy was a nice option because establishment was firmly seated in power.(declaration of orange freestate etc.)
The only threat nuclear arms.
Worldpeace and cooperation a daily fact of life.
(the west and east just had the rest of the world dying. Fair is fair, this needs to be added)
No notion that that stability could end and such weaponry fall in the hands of terrorists.
Or maybe it was there but then disarmament would be the solution.
But the guy is a traitor (vanunu) and the dutch guy seriously naief and maybe taken by the virus of that time on the same line of thinking.(and Khan had clearance and was a friend and colleague, but that stops when he left Holland. One would think. Or thinking that there was no harm because of underfunding-poor guy has to ask me for some stuf that we have thirteen to a dozen just lying around-, and power firmly in the hand of the just about richest people of the world i.e. the landowners of Pakistan.)
But giving information on what might be is different from giving people information on how everybody can make a nuclear weapon.
And the latter is a real threat.
The other definition of armsrace: trying to be the first to have the atombomb, beating Germany and Japan to it.
And flattening japan and Germany.
As a lesson in the meaning of callous destruction as they intended to do with the world to get dominance.
And that should teach us about the nature of fascism and islamfascism.
So Israël and Holland and Pakistan are in the same boat on that one(the knowledge and it's spread) and they each adopt(ed) a different stance.
And their still is enough left to destroy the world 40 times over.
But the biggest killer right now are personal arms.
Power to the people.
Quite a different concept of safety on a worldscale and the perception of what constitutes a threat and the handling of power.
Nations have become of no consequence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron C. de Weijze
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:42 pm Post subject: power in relations |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Power comes from conviction and then committing to it. Selfdoubt erodes that. |
That is exactly right. Notice how easily this can be, and is, turned around: power comes from commitment just to get that power! I will vote like you not because I am convinced but because then we will both be stronger. Democracy treated as Hegel by Marx: on it's head. Sorry for butting-in there, Mark Twain. Heal that trauma.
| Quote: |
| the notion of god giving aids as a punishment and joking about the need for "a godsized rubber" |
A classical example of 'macro-penetration' is an experiment in which docters took the bloodpressure of Israeli women, unsuspectedly dropping the notion that Jewish people were weaker than non-Jewish. This caused the women to much later say 'stop' while the docter was pumping the pressure-meter. Indeed this might also have reversed any passive/retroactive following of torah-do-or-die-prescriptions (lies about religion as a black-box) into (pro-)active self-accountability. Preservation of inherited identity is still at stake, however.
If I do understand you correctly, this just referred to retroactiveness also has a 'logic' of its own: just do so, because I tell you so, because that is the way we do things! These values become trustfunds from which money is distributed more or less unaccounted for. At the other end of this scale, 'post-modernism' (a modern way of posting? :-D ) makes people think for themselves, though hardly factual, about the hereafter, heaven and hell, etcetera. Past, present and future, are the only facts to be really discovered in those visions.
A study of recollection in the human mind or even in non-organic materials can reveal a near mathematical precision of the natural mechanisms involved that need no more than just that past, present and future (Bergson). An exactness close to that of the laws of evolution, both Darwin's or Watson & Crick's. Please expect surprise.
Cy-Lilith. Sorry for presuming you and other Lilith thought alike. A few posts I read of you both convinced me of that prematurely. The point I was trying to make in the previous post about you was that power in relationships was a common and natural thing. It's just where you are that defines who is in charge. A sort of devision of labour or roles. Yes I can see that. That is a sort of power we all posess, indeed, and that does not make one abuse the other, possibly causing trauma. I try to eliminate the concept of power in relationships altogether by assuming reciprocal care on a natural basis, even beyond words. That is where I drew a line between the two of you and myself. Won't make that same mistake again. Sorry! :> ((I was in a stable relationship for 17 years but that has ended 10 years ago (my mistake I guess).))
Thanks for sharing y'all.
 8-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wasn't that the experiment at the copymachine.
Just pass the line at a fast pace, stand in the front and say to the person using it:Please, will it take long, I'm in an awfull hurry(for americans: got a deadline)
A bit of rumbling will be heard.
The next you offer:"it really needs to be copied"
And belief it or not you get the go.
Anybody trying it, please report back.
We really need to know.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
farside
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 439
Location: The Other Side
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:21 am Post subject: LOVE |
|
|
 Are you tired of memorizing the hate verses of the Quran? 
 Hate verses -- 2:191 2:193 3:118 4:75-76 4:84 4:104 5:33 5:51 5:57 5:80-81 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:50 8:065 9:23 9:38-39 9:42 and so on.
Wish you could cause them to disappear from the Quran? 
Relax, take a break  and find your true Love! 
 If you are a male, click here.
 If female, click here.
 Love will wash away  the hatred in your heart.
Click here and listen to a delightful love song. 
Kind Regards,
Farside 
Last edited by farside on Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babushree
Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 540
Location: paradise of virgin babes
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: The Definition of Love |
|
|
hmmmmm.
mr. ali that is atough question.
were u looking for answer like this?? or.....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron C. de Weijze
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:01 am Post subject: paradox |
|
|
| Cy, you asked, for your statistics probably, who else was in a stable relationship here, so I gave you my score. The possibilities of this world, apart from 'dynamics' like yours, are not many since there is a fundamental paradox we all have to live with. As soon as we compare ourselves or our partners to others, honesty quickly turns into disloyalty, or loyalty into dishonesty. So the christian values lead us to the abyss. Wonder what religion is in Abyssinia? Yes I am european (Amsterdam). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron C. de Weijze
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:48 am Post subject: CL |
|
|
| Dear Cy, I draw the line somewhere between Dr Quinn and Little house on the prairie so you cannot say I don't hold those values high. The problem is, we do not live in seclusion (any more) and we have to compare ourselves to others (plus others to others) just to stay in the game of competition, which is the cutting edge of western society and economics. Of course religion is a different ballgame, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be even the birthplace of these values. Nothing is the matter as long as you are on top of your game and you can presume not to be competing. However, that can only be when God or Luck has raised you above comparison level. Like, say, you beat others in sporting games, business games or wargames. Power is the aphrodisiac. Right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron C. de Weijze
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:36 pm Post subject: abyss |
|
|
| Cy, let me explain. I was not getting at the noise and haste but at the impossibility of being honest while not being true, or being true but not being honest, in a competitive world. When you are being loyal does that not mean (often) that you are economical with the truth? Or when you are being honest doest that not mean (often) that you aren't exactly loyal? So how do we 'dynamically' work around this abyss: that is the problem. I do not believe pre-marital counseling can help that or can it? Please explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MarkTwain
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 197
Location: Judean People's Front
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DoctorNO wrote: |
| Love is not just a choice. Love is not just a decision. Love is not just a commitment. Love is also an affecton. You could not remove affection from love and still call it love. |
The problem is we don't always feel affectionate as I outlined in my first post. Feelings are fickle. I think as far as definitions goes I think the best one I’ve come across is:
“When the satisfaction, security and development of another person becomes as significant to you as your own satisfaction, security and development, love exists.”
But that’s not from any of today’s $elf-anointed Dr. Phil-Chopra cliché gurus, it's from Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. In theory, love implies a basic attitude of concern for the satisfaction, security and development of the one loved. In practice, love implies that I'm ready and willing to forego my own convenience, to invest my own time, and even to risk my own security to promote your satisfaction, security and development.
Now even though I say our feelings are fickle, it is also true that I become a transparent, knowable individual only when I tell you my feelings. My ideas, convictions, values, persuasions are not entirely original with me. I got them from reading, by inhaling traditions, by listening to others, by the inevitable osmosis of human contagion, expanded with a touch of my own creative energy. My ideas and the stances I take can locate me in a category, like “agnostic” or “freethinker” but they can never make me transparent and knowable, so that you can experience me, share my person.
Only my feelings, positive-negative-neutral, do this. My feelings are like my fingerprints, the color of my eyes and the sound of my voice: unique to me and unrepeatable in anyone else. Experiences of such communication of feelings inject new vitality into our relationships. When you open to me a part of yourself, a reaction, a hurt, a tenderness or a fear that I have never before experienced in you, I am made more aware of your depth and your mystery. I no longer take you for granted, or foolishly believe that I know you so completely that I need not look for anything new, as though you will always be the unchangeable you that I first met and loved.
Secondly, these moments help me to get out of myself. While I am inside myself there is no possibility for change. This is just as certain as the old saying that we cannot learn anything new while we are speaking but only when listening. When you open the depths of your feelings and yourself to me, it invites me to break my preoccupation with myself. When this happens, when I go out of myself, the door locks behind me. I can never go back into that small, fixed little world again.
It’s like a person who stays in his apartment alone all day. While there he has a feeling of safety. There is no necessity to interact with other people who may threaten or actually hurt him. He is at least secure from harm in his isolation. The whole world outside his little apartment is lost on him. He is alive but not very. He is breathing but not really living. Then one day he looks out his window and sees another person who is experiencing a moment of emotional intensity. It is so interesting, so captivating that he forgets about all his fears. He unlock the door, he goes out to the other and for that lovely, liberating moment he experiences another world. He breaths a new and fresh air. The light and warmth of the sun fall on him for the first time. And then he knows something. The life in him has been expanded. He can never go back, never be the same again, or live the same narrow, cramped existence. He wouldn’t fit in that world anymore, and all because he had been drawn out of himself to someone in a profound way. All the dimensions of his world, the anticipations and prejudices in which he has been imprisoned to some extent fall away.
Perhaps such dramatization make such experiences sound too apocalyptic and the resulting change unrealistically sudden and deep. Change is always slow, but the fact of change and the hope of transformation are very real. Yet I believe in the wake of such experiences both people are permanently, even if not always dramatically, altered because the relationship acquires a new depth and intensity. There will be a new perspective in which each will see the other.
I think probably my easy escape from the practice of realities like love is the substitution of discussion for doing. Wouldn’t we rather debate, think about, and question these realities than put them into practice? It is much easier to discuss truths than to live them. We would rather discuss love than live it. There is no price of admission to the forums of discussion, but the practice of love is a costly discipleship. Dag Hammarskjold writes in his book Markings:
| Quote: |
| The “great” commitment all too easily obscures the “little” one. But without the humility and warmth which you have to develop in your relations to the few with whom you are personally involved, you will never be able to do anything for the many. Without them, you will live in a world of abstractions, where your greed for power, and your death-wish lack the one opponent which is stronger than they—love. It is better for the health of the soul to make one man good than “to sacrifice oneself for mankind.” |
Well, this has been a thought provoking discussion on an important topic so I'm glad I revived this thread.
Take care y'all.
_________________
Dark Ages--shaking the dead
Closed pages--better not read
Cold rages--burn in your head? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Druggies and whores among the tulips. |
It's called back to nature and make that genetically improved tulips
Or sing along: let's take it outside
Or: who let the dogs out.
That was interesting, treat man like dogs and succes guaranteed. bad boy, good boy.
But the druggies are not really the way to compare societies.
You'll find that allover the world.
But fits the pattern of weird upbringing.
Marc twain.
Would you agree that sometimes people are weak and at other times strong.
And that what one can give depends accordingly.
And that you do need others in those weak times when feeling is at a low ebb you need input of others.
Is that what your quote comes down to?
| Quote: |
| It is better for the health of the soul to make one man good than “to sacrifice oneself for mankind.” |
I think healthy relationship is a back and forth of give and take.
(what's the word)relationships were people add what the other lacks have an inbuild powerdeficiency.
So the dynamics are gone.
So if you need a god (even be it a conceptualized as love) than an ingrediënt is missing.
Power to the people.
Without dynamics i think they will start looking for that greener grass.
They feel they have no say so and the dependency gets translated in anger and resentment.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
infatuation of four years!
Can people by the way be in love with religion?
Or is that lust?
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
