>>"I just disagree with your perception that it
>>is okay for you to judge that a particular writing is wrong for me."
>Well...John I didn't do that.
>Perhaps you perceived my email in such a manner.
I think (though I didn't check the web archive to make sure) that if you
check the continuity of messages that what you said about "certainly DO
NOT find that amusing" came after what I said about "judging". That can
change the perception.
Also, my statement about judging was not pointed at you, but at any
message in which someone tries to tell another person on this list what
they should and should not be reading. I wrote my reply because of many
previous messages from various people trying to say that one person was
right and another was wrong, implying that nothing of that other person
could be right.
Finally, in response to the person who posted the link about autism, you
might want to also read up about Asperger Disorder, a type of autism
that can cause an adult person not necessarily make the right decisions
in social situations, or even to recognize that he's made the wrong
decision in such a situation. Not to make excuses for him, but if CWL
had Asperger Disorder, it could mean that if he were tried today, a
judge might rule that he was incapable of being tried. It could also
explain why he might have (allegedly) believed that what he was doing
was all right.
It is possible for an adult to have Asperger Disorder and still function
in society. I am such a person. I didn't find out that I had it until
about ten years ago when I was diagnosed as having mild Aspergers by Dr.
Dale Jordan who used to be the state Learning Disabilities specialist
for the Arkansas Department of Adult Education. I also have moderate
Attention Deficit Disorder (not high enough to require medication) and
mild dysgraphia.
I might add that understanding what I have has made a difference in my
life. I am a totally different person since my "awakening" than before
specifically because I understand myself better.
Of course, it is impossible now to diagnose someone for something he did
a century ago, but my point is to try to offer a scenario in which he
can be wrong in one respect, but still not wrong in another.
Finally, let me reiterate, I am NOT trying to say that what he
(allegedly) did was right. I'm just saying that even if he did it, it
should not mean that everything he did in his life was 100% wrong as a
result. I still believe that it is possible for parts of his writings to
be right for someone in this group, and in some strange way, even his
ramblings about martians might even be right for someone. Note that I'm
not trying to say that any of these writings are right for you, because
you might have already made up your mind for yourself.
>But, let us be honest - I did NOT judge
>what is right or wrong for you.
I don't recall that you did, but when someone on this list says that his
writings are wrong for anyone else, it comes across to me that a person
is saying that it is wrong for me, because it sounds to me like he (or
she) is saying that person is 100% wrong.
I just hate to see people on this list say that CWL's writings are 100%
wrong, or that HPB's writings are 100% wrong. I believe it's possible
for both of them to be right, to some extent. (But I refuse to say that
either one is 100% right ... I reserve the 100% figure for God. (It is
said that the Amish women deliberately put a mistake into every quilt
that they make, because they don't want to make a perfect quilt, because
only God can make perfection.)
If you want to read more about Aspergers, hereare a few links:
** Freaks, Geeks and Asperger Syndrome
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/1843100983/ref=nosim/recommendations
** Pretending to be Normal, Living with Asperger's Syndrome
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/1853027499/ref=nosim/recommendations
** Reflections from a Different Journey, what Adults with Disabilities
wish All Parents Knew
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0071422692/ref=nosim/recommendations
>X is more clever than Y and this is a fact.
>It will not work the other way around Y is more clever than X.
That is something that I will not do. I will not get into a comparison
where I try to say that one person is better than another. I also refuse
to say that one person's religion is better than another's.
So, I won't say that X is more clever than Y, because it's not for me to
judge.
I might concede that X is more clever than Y in one person's opinion,
and that Y is more clever than X in another person's opinion, but I will
not try to make it a fact that is undisputable that one is factually
more clever than another.
Likewise, for some people, Pope Benedict is more clever than the Rabbi
down the street from you, but that does not mean that it's wrong for
somone in your neighbor to decide that the Rabbi is more clever than
Pope Benedict. It's more a matter of opinion than fact.
>Because that is a lie.
It's only a lie when you try to twist what I say. I never tried to say
that one person was better than another. I'm only trying to say that it
is possible for BOTH of them to be right (and the unspoken assumption
that I now add ...
I believe that it is possible for both of them to be equally right ...
in God's eyes.
>What you in fact are saying is that our talk about who is right or
wrong is
>amusing.
I think it's amusing that someone can say (or imply) that one person is
100% wrong because of one (type of) incident. I also find it amusing
that some people say that Bill Clinton did NOTHING GOOD in his eight
years in office because he had oral sex with an intern (Why did he get
reelected if he did nothing good?). I've met some Republicans in this
area that admit that he actually did some good in office, like ending
his term with a surplus and supporting education better than a certain
present administration that shall remain nameless (but whose secretary
of education is getting sued because they are demanding that schools
increase spending for "No Child Left Behind" but not supplying the
funds, forcing schools to get rid of art and music in order to support
the other requirements (mandates?).).
>I think it is serious.
I believe you are serious. But why does it bother you that I believe
that it's possible for CWL to have some good inside him? I believe that
God loves CWL just as much as he loves HPB, and that it is possible that
God allowed the (alleged) behavior that has been brought up so many
times on this list in order to spark the debate that is happening.
It just seems to me that everytime someone tries to say that they read
CWL's writings, that others on this list try to point out every reason
why they should not. I just believe that it is possible for people to
find good in EVERY person, and in every person's writings (to some
extent). (I will admit that I have no desire to read Hitler's manifesto
(whatever it was called), nor do I wish to read the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, because I know they were written deliberately to deceive
(in my opinion).
>But i get you point, that it is sort of silly
>to discuss whether X is right and Y is wrong - OR - whether Y is right
and X
>is wrong.
Right ... It is silly, since I believe that both of them are right, to a
similar extent.
>But - in this manner some of us learns something.
Actually, I hope that ALL OF US learn something. (Except for the person
with his head in the sand who is convinced that there is nothing left
for him to learn).
>Yet - you still answered my email - in our little deabte on who is
right or
>wrong - did you not?
Honestly, when I replied, I was not replying to you, but I was replying
to my frustration to everyone trying to prove that one point of view is
better than another.
If you are convinced that you are 100% right in your opinions, then
please don't bother to reply to try to convince me that I am not right
in my opinions. I prefer discussions where both sides realize that there
is room for learning. I know that I can learn from everyone on this list
(and I know that no matter how many centuries I read this list, I will
never be perfect). If you believe you can learn from everyone, then
reply away. If your only purpose in replying is to prove the others
wrong, then please don't reply,
--
John, webmaster
www.GodLovesEveryone.org and www.MAZES.com
FLASH *** FLASH *** FLASH
More than 38 thousand different GOD LOVES YOU puzzles.
Each maze has a different first name
Each maze has a different unique solution
Find your first name here:
http://www.godloveseveryone.org/god-loves-name.htm
Put our amazing "search box" on your web page. Details
@ http://www.godloveseveryone.org/god-loves-name.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
