Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

30958Re: the prickly pear

Expand Messages
  • cribprdb
    Nov 1, 2004
      So driven then down to the river, collected up with sword or gun, we
      never understood the ruckus, challenged as we were there with baptism
      or death. Most of us just wanted peace and to calm that white fanatic
      adventurism enough to allow for life. There was no philosophical
      change then in us, just an effort at co-existence and peace, but Jesus
      was never content, and could never get enough. Eventually we died and
      left that worthless seed of error behind in our children, and all over
      and over again reproduced the terrifying Christo-fantasy in our own
      bloodline. The choice for peace was authentic, but not the choice for
      Jesus, and it was a peace that never came at all, because of a Jesus
      hungry for power and unashamed of human bloodshed. So today what
      Christian is authentic, all spawned of philosophical heredity,
      intellectual parasitism, flouted history and amnesia? And the way of
      Jesus remains the same, the lurking dormant parasite, driving hosts to
      kill hosts, for its life is perpetuated and agrandized always in new
      children. All ideas of Gods are speculations in the face of the fear
      of death, a paradoxical intellectual mutation of an initially
      authentic choice for peace and human life. No choice for religion is
      authentic, and without new children it will die out. What hysteria
      began, hysteria will end. Hysterical intellectual improvisation is the
      most likely cause of sub-conscious biological mutation. So say your
      sooth in your sickness unto death.

      Trinidad Cruz

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
      > Trinidad Cruz,
      > If 'sweet Lou' is a reference to me, your penultimate paragraph is
      > odious in the extreme. Now, I believe true philosophers can be self-
      > moderating, but that's an idealist position. It is still Susan's
      > decision when and how to moderate, and whether to kick or ban
      > anyone, something thankfully rare on this list. So what I am about
      > to say is purely my own opinion.
      > First, the facts. I do not drink Jesus' blood. I have never even
      > taken communion, or participated, if you prefer different
      > terminology, at the Lord's table, though it has been offered to me,
      > for example when I first thought I might have become a Christian, at
      > an Anglican church in West Bridgeford, Nottingham. And I do not
      > drink your blood, you sick fantasist: how dare you make such an
      > accusation, you who suggest it is I who resort to 'cryptic
      > mysticism'. Overcome your intellectual laziness, and you will find
      > plenty of rigorous arguments from me in the archives.
      > Your whole message here is a rant. It is not argument, it is not
      > philosophy, it is not existentialism. It is literature. Take the
      > beam out of your eye, you pseudo-imperialist, and learn some manners.
      > Louise
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic