Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Radical Homosexual Terrorism

page: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


So if the point is moot then why are you addressing me with it?

I agreed that it was wrong of both sides so what is your point?

I acknowledged there are churches with security. I asked why this one does and was told churches just do. Fact is, not around here. So it is not just because churches do that is it?

So if you did not follow me here, and you have no argument to make because you cannot disagree and the point is moot, THEN WHY ARE YOU EVEN ADDRESSING ME?




posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL


LoL Don't flatter yourself, I got invited here .


Then go address that person.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
First of all YOU need a permit to assemble in a demonstration so MEL is wrong. Secondly, every damn one of you would have felt terrorized had this taken place at your place of business or while you were standing in line at a bank and people with masks dressed like they were dressed with weapons and then an alarm goes off. NOT TO SMART!


It probably wasn't so smart, con.

But it still wasn't terrorism. I doubt I would have felt 'terrorised'. People shouting 'jesus was a homo' and flinging condoms and leaflets, kissing, and unfurling a flag isn't that fear-inducing. Perhaps that's because I don't find LGBT's skeery.

I'm not sure they were actually wearing masks. From what I hear, they were a deep-cover queer cell dressed in sunday best. Sat in the chruch, and then demonstrated during the service.


Meanwhile, with the guards pre-occupied by the distraction, over a dozen queers had put on their Sunday-best and infiltrated the church’s
congregation. At the signal that the guards had been lured outside, the
infiltrators sprung into action.

A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly.
Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went into
action. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-off
balcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”. Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entirety of the congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes.


What I did find interesting is that Bash Back do say that a number of them grew up in that particular church.


Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
When did they call themselves terrorists? I may have missed that, I can admit it.


They didn't.

They said they know others are calling them terrorists. They understand that is because their very existence terrorises them, and that makes them proud.

You've got to give it to these dudes, though. Agents of intolerance who have helped limit a group's civil rights attempting to turn it around to label that group the agents of intolerance.

Whilst LGBTs are beaten, murdered, and open to institutionalised discrimination a major source of this intolerance whine about a juvenile demonstration and a group of bible-bashing Joel's Army dopes being run out of a gay section of town.

'They're persecuting us!' rofl.



[edit on 22-11-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


What I did find interesting is that Bash Back do say that a number of them grew up in that particular church.


[edit on 22-11-2008 by melatonin]


That is interesting. Going on the theories of Main and Tail and Lightmeer, I wonder what it is about growing up in that church that made them chose to be gay....hmmmmm...I wonder if any member of the church had a hand in that.

Anyway, back in the real world. I still do not agree with going into a church and disrupting a private service, the more this is explained in detail, the less it qualifies as terrorism. It may have been in bad taste and if you really want to stretch it, pulling the alarm could have caused some real trouble but it did not. No masks, no guns. What exactly was so terrorizing?

This is a case of a bunch of unruly, ill mannered folks did a bad thing to a group of people who, unfortunately, were not above deserving a bad thing to happen.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Anyway, back in the real world. I still do not agree with going into a church and disrupting a private service, the more this is explained in detail, the less it qualifies as terrorism. It may have been in bad taste and if you really want to stretch it, pulling the alarm could have caused some real trouble but it did not. No masks, no guns. What exactly was so terrorizing?


That's the thing. They shouldn't have done it. It was wrong...and stupid.

At the moment the LGBT community have the moral highground, and the groups opposing them are going to goad, provocate, and then yell 'intolerance' at the most inane things. So Bash Back need to be careful - they aren't going to help.

Problem is, they are young anarchists and couldn't give a fig about what they call the heteronormative LGBT community, nevermind the christian martyrs.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

So if the point is moot then why are you addressing me with it?

I agreed that it was wrong of both sides so what is your point?


I acknowledged there are churches with security. I asked why this one does and was told churches just do. Fact is, not around here. So it is not just because churches do that is it?


You just admitted there are church's with security so what is their excuse?
You asked a question knowing full well none of us would know without speculation but when a Church is so big it has to have the aggregate of their Sunday offering taken to the bank in a BRINKS TRUCK! I'd say that warrants having security! AND THE Church the OP is talking about isn't IN NEW YORK! As if you frequent ANY church at all much less have the interest to find any

No I did NOT follow you and don't tell me I don't have anything to disagree with having no reason to address you when I have to prove I didn't follow you proves we have a disagreement

(Image of u2u's removed)




[edit on 22-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

[edit on 11-22-2008 by chissler]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Off-topic post removed.

Please stay on topic.

[edit on 11-22-2008 by chissler]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Please stay on-topic and address the topic of this thread, not one another.

Future posts that are solely directed at other members will be removed.

Please, stay on-topic.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 



Let me run that back by you, in God's own words, "There is no distinction among people, since all have sinned... whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point is guilty of breaking all of it."


"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (luke 5:32)

You are absolutely correct in that all have sinned. The specific sin of homosexuality is quite irrelevant. However, the attitude by homosexuals that they can repeatedly commit this sin - as a lifestyle choice - and be still be forgiven for it - only because they are predisposed to liking it - is dead wrong. Predisposition to a particular sin is not license.

" When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (Mk 8:34)

The thing that is relevant that you completely ignore is that forgiveness of sin is available to all as well but repentance is required.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites," (1 Co 6:9)

No one disputes all have sinned - what is disputed is that one can remain in sin unrepentently and inherit the kingdom of heaven. Clearly they will not.

So what was your point?



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
MAINTAL:



Looking at your avatar Enki, sticking up for a cross has never been your style but attributing blame to the victim in this case, now that is typical of someone who has been nothing less than a Christian antagonist who spends his time blaming Christians for everything all the gays peoples miserable lives.

Tolerance is for people who want to seek the approval of the politically correct. I don't tolerate that and I don't have to either.

This is Black and White and whammy is right. I can't imagine a Circuit Court Judge saying, what you are if they were brought up on charges.


MAINTAL, I can't honestly dissect what in the world you are saying here, but I can say that you've said nothing to support your assertion that this is indeed "black and white". Being mean and spiteful doesn't add weight to your heavy handed but poorly premised statements.



The fact is, the whole bunch of them ought to be before they realize people like you don't seem to care at this current level of agitation. So they well take it a step further and further till one day, someone gets killed.


So your argument is: they should all be punished severely because the logical end of their behavior is someone getting killed. I don't even see premise and inference for your assertion that the logical end of their behavior is someone getting killed. Prove it or accept that your claim is totally invalid.



I am sick of hearing about all this oppression gays have been under by Christians when we don't know who is gay and most of us couldn't care less! As for your silly idea they have had their rights taken from them,,

No law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry!

The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman!!!

Nor a woman hers to marry a man.!

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law!

So technically, you can't say they have no rights to marry as long as they do it the way Marriage was intended.


This would be like arguing during the times of slavery that "no law in this country has ever prevented a black man from working!". Aside from the fact that it's logically fallacious, I think it's entirely disingenuous. I find it ironic that you start in with the ad hominems talking about how another poster has always been "on the side of the gays", when the only posts I've seen from you here are stoutly objecting to gay people and black people. Pot, kettle.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

MAINTAL, I can't honestly dissect what in the world you are saying here


What CAN you do honestly?


but I can say that you've said nothing to support your assertion that this is indeed "black and white".


What?? Is this that hard for you to figure out??? Is there some ambiguous gray area? some nebulous cloudy part of a this gang of thugs coming into a church, to accost those in the congregation with malicious angst aggression that you actually need something after the OP to substantiate who was in the wrong here!

When you figure THAT out then you might understand why I didn't have to put fourth much of an effort in support of my "assertion" IT IS THAT OBVIOUS who is in the wrong here HENCE the reason I said it is Black and White.


Being mean and spiteful doesn't add weight to your heavy handed but poorly premised statements.


Yeah and if I didn't know better I'd say it must of been YOU that I was mean to, else why start your response to me as if I was even talking to you. Now that I see you can one up me in the mean department, insulting me from the gate, I guess you'll understand that too, when you finally figure out that being guilty of the same mean, nasty, sarcastic and presumptuous character flaws while giving others advice about their own brand of "mean", it hurts your testimony.

In Fact Johnny, I have never seen you be anything BUT mean. Unless it's someone sharing your worldview.


you think they should all be punished severely


If it were me? the fact they are gay could be argued that in and of itself is punishment enough. However I would have dropped any charges as I am sure they would drop their charges against me in an exchange for what I'd have done to a number of them. That wouldn't have been the first time that has happened while a Church I was attending was raided like that and I am not one to take that kind of crap waiting for the police to get there just in time to take a report.




because the logical end of their behavior is someone getting killed.


NO! Pay attention! The logical reason they should be punished is BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW!



I don't even see premise and inference for your assertion that the logical end of their behavior is someone getting killed.


That isn't the "Logical end" that is JUST a REAL Possibility! To know the "Logical end" as you want to call it in your straw man named Kreskin, is the end one obviously would need a crystal ball to foresee. Conventional wisdom would suggest that one can only speculate on that and when things escalate where this kind of criminal behavior is allowed to go un-checked,, yeah the natural order of violence in violent delinquents like they are? People like that usually go too far before they finally find out how far they can go.



Prove it or accept that your claim is totally invalid.


GuFaW!!! BuHa HA HA HA WHAT!

Who the hell do you think you are? HA HA Ill tell you what son, Ill do what I want to do and YOU can threaten your ultimatums at someone more gullible than I



I find it ironic that you start in with the ad hominems talking about how another poster has always been "on the side of the gays",


That doesn't sound like something I said, at least not about gays anyway. Even if it was, and I was saying it to someone that was always on the side of the gays, that still wouldn't be an ad-hom, it would just be stating a fact.


when the only posts I've seen from you here are stoutly objecting to gay people and black people. Pot, kettle.


No?? really? stoutly?? Yeah I object to Gays getting married in same sex relationships, and as for the attempt to pull the race card on me,, Do you have any Idea my ethnic background?

Gee Ill bet you thought I was a White dude all this time.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The specific sin of homosexuality is quite irrelevant.


My point exactly. It's wonderful that you get that. There is a school of thought that some Christians but not all of them adhere to which treats homosexuality as a worse sin than others. Some people will tell you that a homosexual cannot possibly have given his heart to God.

The point of the argument I presented is to corner such people into putting themselves in the shoes of their victims. We forgive sins we can relate to- like gossip. We say, "the bible says gossip is as bad as murder, but i try not to do it at least and i know that jesus has forgiven me for that weakness". We understand the inability to stop sinning in that case.

But we don't understand the temptation to be homosexual. So we don't understand the inability to stop sinning in that case. So we don't see how such people could be sincere in their desire to follow God. So we turn to the law, which exists to cast light on the nature of sin, and the law forces one to place himself in the shoes of a homosexual, to empathize, and to acknowledge that it is just another sin and every bit as forgivable as the others.



However, the attitude by homosexuals that they can repeatedly commit this sin - as a lifestyle choice - and be still be forgiven for it - only because they are predisposed to liking it - is dead wrong.


Oh, I guess you don't get it afterall. You keep committing the same sins over and over again too. We all do. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION AMONG PEOPLE, dude. We love to classify people right out of humanity. We classify their marriages differently so they dont have quite the same rights, and we classify their sins differently so they don't have salvation, and it's all intellectually and scripturally bankrupt. The lack of respect for the rest of humanity is just sad.


No one disputes all have sinned - what is disputed is that one can remain in sin unrepentently and inherit the kingdom of heaven. Clearly they will not.


My point is that they are not remaining in sin unrepentantly any more than you or any other Christian. If you really want to keep going over the scripture I've got more for you, but since you're guilty of homosexual sodomy in the eyes of god there is really not much point in your reading the bible.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL


Looking at your avatar Enki, sticking up for a cross has never been your style but attributing blame to the victim in this case,


When did I blame the victims? Please show where I once blamed the victims in any way.

I am getting a little sick of you lying about me and ignoring me when I ask you to back of the crap you say about me.


now that is typical of someone who has been nothing less than a Christian antagonist who spends his time blaming Christians for everything all the gays peoples miserable lives.



When did I blame Christians for everything?

Please either back up the things you say about me or stop saying them.

Or just admit you are a liar.


However, the attitude by homosexuals that they can repeatedly commit this sin - as a lifestyle choice - and be still be forgiven for it - only because they are predisposed to liking it - is dead wrong.


How about repeatedly telling lies?

How about repeatedly being judgemental of others?

Have not learned your lesson yet? I guess God will see through your lack of repentance then won't he.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I read 7 pages.



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I am absolutely not condoning or encouraging or supporting or agreeing or being an apologist to these actions; but the Churches have it coming.

It's that simple.

It's historically sound; the oppressed eventually 'fight back' against their oppressors. I prefer the peaceful approach from both sides!


I could not agree more. Did anyone actually see this "terrorism"?



Oooh! Scary! 9/11 all over again! BW, How dare you call that "terrorism"?

melatonin I wish I could give you what you deserve for that cartoon. That is 100% spot on!

Let's be honest here, Big Whammy. If religion would just BACK OFF and stop oppressing this segment of our society, there would be nothing to "fight back" against. You're probably right that someone will get hurt. When one group of people oppresses another, someone usually gets hurt.

This is how oppressed people work to get their rights. The sooner religion using the government stops oppressing gay people's rights, the better we'll all be. And the government isn't innocent in this. They shouldn't let religion push them around.

I have hope that an Obama administration will work to grant gay people their Constitutional rights. Call it marriage, civil unions or Mickey Mouse, but when gay people can get "hitched" and have all the same rights as straight people, then this kind of thing will die out.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

When did I blame the victims? Please show where I once blamed the victims in any way.

I am getting a little sick of you lying about me and ignoring me when I ask you to back of the crap you say about me.


Show you where you blamed the victims in "any way"??

Okaaay but don't blame me for that hotface and shooting pain in your left arm, the shortness of breath and all the other symptoms I will assume you will experience once this is.

Ready?



"So what did this church do to get the ire of this group? - angel of lightangelo"



They did nothing but you insisted that no guards worked in any church in your area concluding that this church must have done something to deserve this. That is what you call blaming the victim.





"This is a case of a bunch of unruly, ill mannered folks did a bad thing to a group of people who, unfortunately, were not above deserving a bad thing to happen. " - angel of lightangelo




Please either back up the things you say about me or stop saying them.

Or just admit you are a liar.


I just did AGAIN! Now GET OFF MY NECK! I Told you yesterday I was DONE talking to you and you are here suggesting I AM SAYING LIES (Gee isn't that a coincedence?)




Have not learned your lesson yet? I guess God will see through your lack of repentance then won't he.


Yeah I did learn my lesson and suffered a post being removed and so did you! So I suggest you quit making your demands and get back on topic

YOU AND I ARE DONE! GOT IT!

GET OVER ME !

CHISSLER! This is why I sent that to you



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I never blamed the victims. I said they were not perfect or wholly innocent of anything.

I asked you to back it up and you failed.

You did not show me blaming the victims just stating that I felt they were not so innocent as to deserve my pity either. Twist that all you like. People who can read and have no agenda against me can get it.

I also never said the other things I keep reminding you that you have not backed up.

Thank you for proving that I never did blame the victims. Now, crying to the mods about might help but if you would stop posting to me, that would help even more.

Hey chissler, getting all this yet? Make sure you take good note of the things I have been accused of saying and the complete lack of proof for it.

I dare call that missrepresenting me.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
My point exactly. It's wonderful that you get that. There is a school of thought that some Christians but not all of them adhere to which treats homosexuality as a worse sin than others. Some people will tell you that a homosexual cannot possibly have given his heart to God.

The point of the argument I presented is to corner such people into putting themselves in the shoes of their victims. We forgive sins we can relate to- like gossip. We say, "the bible says gossip is as bad as murder, but i try not to do it at least and i know that jesus has forgiven me for that weakness". We understand the inability to stop sinning in that case.


Oh people that are in Christ do understand it. People indwelt with the Holy spirit can testify it is a process of regeneration. Often painful. If you commit the same sin repeatedly it is evidence you need to question your position in Christ. "i know that Jesus has forgiven me for that weakness"." is a convenient lie people tell themselves - just like the lie you can live a gay lifestyle and go to heaven - both are false doctrine. Fake Christianity is Satan's best tool - if you don't think you're sick - you won't seek the Dr.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'



But we don't understand the temptation to be homosexual. So we don't understand the inability to stop sinning in that case. So we don't see how such people could be sincere in their desire to follow God. So we turn to the law, which exists to cast light on the nature of sin, and the law forces one to place himself in the shoes of a homosexual, to empathize, and to acknowledge that it is just another sin and every bit as forgivable as the others.


Oh I understand it just fine. I have struggled with addictions in the past - it was very difficult to stop. I could have never done it on my own power, but by surrendering my life to Christ I was freed. There is absolutely no difference - except that there are plenty of liars leading people to hell by pandering to homosexual sin.

" I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." (Ro 12:1)



Oh, I guess you don't get it afterall.


Oh I understand you - it's called humanism - not Christianity.



You keep committing the same sins over and over again too. We all do.


No actually I don't. No one who is truly in Christ will. You are dead wrong. I can look at my life and see a pattern of regeneration that is where my assurance comes from.



THERE IS NO DISTINCTION AMONG PEOPLE, dude. We love to classify people right out of humanity. We classify their marriages differently so they dont have quite the same rights, and we classify their sins differently so they don't have salvation, and it's all intellectually and scripturally bankrupt. The lack of respect for the rest of humanity is just sad.


The bible says there HUGE distinctions among people. In fact most are going to hell. Christianity is the narrow gate and few may enter.

Humanity is the problem - Christianity is about dying to self and crucifying the flesh - not making excuses to feed its lusts.

"And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Ga 5:24)

1 Cor 6:9 is very explicit that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Christians do not define themselves by sexuality - period. People with a history of that behavior recover all the time - never to return to it. I know some personally and they are much happier now - they have true joy. The solution is to surrender fully to Christ and repent from the behavior - and to no longer define yourself by sexual urges.



My point is that they are not remaining in sin unrepentantly any more than you or any other Christian.


And you have psychic super powers in which you have verified the sins of all Christians? If they remain in a gay lifestyle they most likely are not in Christ. - 1 cor 6:9 is very cut and dry.



If you really want to keep going over the scripture I've got more for you, but since you're guilty of homosexual sodomy in the eyes of god there is really not much point in your reading the bible.


You are clearly attempting to conform Christianity to the pattern of the world. You are a humanist. You twist the scripture to fit your need to be of the world.

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Ro 12:2)

It has little to do with what ones has done - it's about repentance - it's a visible pattern of progress and regeneration. If that is not visible and you conform to the world - you are likely not in Christ.





[edit on 11/22/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   


You are clearly attempting to conform Christianity to the pattern of the world. You are a humanist. You twist the scripture to fit your need to be of the world.


I find this hilarious, as modern Christianity and Judaism hardly resembles how it was practiced back in the days it was written. The bible has continually been bended and flexed to fit the laws and morals of the societies it has been practiced in. Most all modern Christians accept these moral changes as part of the scripture - even finding their own new interpretations to justify the changes while ignoring (or inventing appologetics) to explain away the rules they no longer wish to follow. Indeed, even the disparity between the lessons of the New and Old testament are... well... a testament of this.

To live according to the bible means that you find no moral quarrel in slavery. Means you endorse, or ignore, the abuse of women. Means you support genocide (provided, of course, that it's "god sanctioned"). Indeed, the fundamentalist muslims everyone loves to demonize are probably far truer to the actual teachings of the bible and the way they were practiced than modern Christianity. The only reason that modern Christianity seems temperate in comparison is precisely because it HAS been tempered by society. There's no shortage of horror stories in Christianity's past during this process of temperance. Some are quite recent, such as the Vatican's support of the Axis powers in WWII, abortion clinic bombings, and the violence in Northern Ireland.


A wonderful video series extrapolating just such points. Especially Video 3 regarding rape, women, and the Bible's valuation of women. From the perspective of someone who was raised "In the spirit" for most of their life and was a fundamentalist Christian before they could no longer exercise the required mental gymnastics to explain the discrepancies in their unquestioned faith.

These mental gymnastics fascinate me. You point to a line in the bible and claim it's "cut & dry" - yet anytime a discrepancy is exposed, it's brushed off as a mistranslation, to which you need to understand the original hebrew (or something similar). When going back to the original texts don't work, it's always something that has to be read "In the Spirit" - meaning it makes absolutely no sense as written, and must be viewed through an unquestioning and completely subservient mind before it could be understood. (When in fact, it's not understood - it's just further unquestioned) This is a lazy way of trying to explain away discrepancies as it assumes that the human mind is incapable of logically understanding such a proposition. An extremely simple one in comparison to the many other things we understand, even if just partially and even if they are not immediately logical - bordering on magic in some people's eyes, like Quantum Physics.

Perhaps I should just follow my fellow Christians and pray to the... uh... Golden Calf... for understanding? lol wut?



Also, you mention that "converted" gays are much happier? Aside from pulling up statistics showing that the vast majority find no help from the church, this reminds me of a speech that Michael Crichton gave a few years in which he detailed a conversation between him and a doctor friend. This doctor had a patient who showed signs of starvation, dehydration, and was slowly dying. Nothing they did for the man could help him, and the man insisted that his malady was caused by a curse that had been put on him. So as a last resort, the doctor and his nursing staff came in and set the ambiance of the room. He told the man that his juju magic was much more powerful than the curse giver's magic. He danced around the bed chanting and hoping he put on a convincing performance. Surprisingly, a few days later, the man began to recover and eventually left the hospital much healthier than when he entered.

Complexity theory speech - the exert is a little way's in, to extrapolate on his views of Chernobyl

This is an example of the auto-deceptive effects of faith, or rather, of being told something by a person they trust in a position of authority and the mind being so convinced by it that physical symptoms being to manifest. Faith, however, includes "god" who many claim to be the ultimate authority. This affect can also be seen in many of the threads here, such as those dealing with conventional medicine vs. holistic medicines.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join