Thread: Question for Leo Volont

I just thought I'd point out to Leo that self-righteousness is not righteousness: it is the evil of boasting of one's works and putting himself above others. If we were to have a self-righteous society, we would cease to exist because everyone would be putting everyone else down. Jesus preached humility in all, not pride. And by that I'm not saying you can't be proud of someone for their accomplishments. Pride in this case means being overly appreciative of one's own accomplishments and position.

Originally posted by Lucius+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lucius)</div>

But, to call it satanic and the root of all evil is a little over the top.. it is the belief of millions of people you are speaking about here. Something they hold dear to them and makes them happy.. calling it satanic, false and demonic isn't very considerate towards them. Many people would feel very hurt if you would call their religion that way. Enough people get hurt in this world.[/b]

The problem here is not as much as insulting the people who blindly belive on what their childhood religion has been taught to them, but rather, the manipulation of moral principles to control in self benefit, wich is the mainly problem with protestants who realy know their religion, wich they use to shield in orther to maintain a level of power that in no way actually helps or follow christ true teachings.

Originally posted by Lucius@
But in any case, do you really believe all protestants and everything about this branch of religion is evil and corrupted? Surely there are many among them that are just as kind and loving as any catholic or person of any other religion. Just as devoted to God and their religion. It would be unfair *at the very least and put politely) to say they are evil and followers of the anti-christ. In fact, I could throw some very rude remarks about the way you speak off them but I won't. You've got enough people against you. *

But, when it comes down to it. Again, I don't believe that if there even is anything out there to judge us (besides ourselves) then it will never judge us for our spiritual believes as long as they don't cause us to harm others or ourselves. I wish the relatively minor differences between religions and sub-religions of a branch would be seen as interesting and beautiful, instead of evil and wrong by members of other religions.. just like cultural differences (fortunately some people do). By all means, I'd rather have a loving, kind, fun, warm hearted protestant than a cold and judgemental catholic by my side.. but vice versa as well. I don't like judging people by their religion or faith.

I don't quite agree with this, I do though, aprove brotherhood for all, but it is not a judgemental fact to decide and act with principle.

Surely Lucius, you have your own way of viewing things as we all do, and you have your own subjective truth about good or evil, right or wrong, and aply this into your everyday life, when you see wrong you either act against it, or let it happen (depending on your principles), as well as when you see right. Where does it make a diference if you act or not upon something, comes along with what you belive and are, your ideologies. If you follow a moral activity with doubt, uncertanty, it is because you have no established idea, upon your acting on the subject is neither way true for you. So in end, what I'm trying to say is that if you have principles and ideas that have you act upon something wrongful for you, you do it, its not a question of judgement, it is a question of principle and being moraly correct or wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-WolfBlade
I just thought I'd point out to Leo that self-righteousness is not righteousness: it is the evil of boasting of one's works and putting himself above others. If we were to have a self-righteous society, we would cease to exist because everyone would be putting everyone else down. Jesus preached humility in all, not pride. And by that I'm not saying you can't be proud of someone for their accomplishments. Pride in this case means being overly appreciative of one's own accomplishments and position.

I belive in diference that, although self-righteousness is wrong in some ways, there should be a more higher level of conciousness of the human being, in wich case would respond to principles, morality, diferences and respect, and I belive in any case this was a big part of Jesus teachings, to love, to be more, but not in a materialistic way, but in a concious-spiritual way; this brings us down to the fact, that the action of manipulating this belifs into ones self benefit would be wrong, so if two people belive in the same god, but one paints it diferently from the other, who is indeed right?, what does your principle tell you?, this are questions one could only answer to one self, and to act upon it depends on you, not god.

Originally posted by Sortilegio+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sortilegio)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-WolfBlade

*
I just thought I'd point out to Leo that self-righteousness is not righteousness: it is the evil of boasting of one's works and putting himself above others. If we were to have a self-righteous society, we would cease to exist because everyone would be putting everyone else down. Jesus preached humility in all, not pride. And by that I'm not saying you can't be proud of someone for their accomplishments. Pride in this case means being overly appreciative of one's own accomplishments and position.

I belive in diference that, although self-righteousness is wrong in some ways, there should be a more higher level of conciousness of the human being, in wich case would respond to principles, morality, diferences and respect, and I belive in any case this was a big part of Jesus teachings, to love, to be more, but not in a materialistic way, but in a concious-spiritual way; this brings us down to the fact, that the action of manipulating this belifs into ones self benefit would be wrong, so if two people belive in the same god, but one paints it diferently from the other, who is indeed right?, what does your principle tell you?, this are questions one could only answer to one self, and to act upon it depends on you, not god.[/b]

I agree with you on that point, a higher responsibility would be good for the human race. The only reason I posted that was because I didn't want people using "self-righteous" as a good term. It's not.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Leo, it is indeed really funny that the only way you could possibly win an argument is by using baseless insuts and big words to intimidate. You're a real big man, huh? Well, my verdict is, you are full of it. I used to think the things you said, actually (sometimes) made sense, in a self-righteous sort of way. Now, you're getting to be kind of insane. So, unless you have something to say directly to me, why don't you keep me out of your bullshit? Thank you, in advance.

Here is what you just said. You used to think I made sense, but since you have not been able to intellectually keep up with me, you decided to just give up and go back to your previous mindlessness. You were so happy back then, being stupid.

But, it doesn't work like that. You have bitten of the Fruit of Knowledge. The Innocence of Idiocy has been lost. You wish you could go back. You will find you can't.

Originally posted by Seeker


Every time you do something like this, you not only anger the other fine people of this forum, you also hurt your credibility.

It is only more reason to continue unchanged. You see, I am so extremely busy answering correspondance while my "credibility" is so much in question, that I do not think I could handle the traffic if I so consciously sucked up and flattered this audiance the way some manipulative posers would do.

So let some of us be intellectually honest, and those who want to be popular can work on that.

Originally posted by WolfBlade
I just thought I'd point out to Leo that self-righteousness is not righteousness: it is the evil of boasting of one's works and putting himself above others. If we were to have a self-righteous society, we would cease to exist because everyone would be putting everyone else down. Jesus preached humility in all, not pride. And by that I'm not saying you can't be proud of someone for their accomplishments. Pride in this case means being overly appreciative of one's own accomplishments and position.

Yes, it offers great spiritual consolation for the weak and the stupid that it is not held against them on the Day of Judgement. However, Jesus never positively insisted that all nobility and superiority of personality and character had to be intentionally scuttled and lowliness and inferiority cultivated and indulged. Yes, the Beatitudes from the Sermon of the Mount mention meekness, but we also have "Blessed those who hunger and thirst for Righteousness, for they shall be filled". And those who have the light, are instructed to stand upon a Hill.

Look at some of the Parables. We find that the most successful of the Investors was given more, but that the least ambitious and the most unsuccessful was cast away... even punished.

Then we can look at the Life of Christ Himself. What regard did He show the meek and the humble? Besides not condemning them, not much. But what of John the Baptist -- "The Voice that Shouted out in the Desert". Jesus did not even start upon his own Ministry until he had sought out the approval of this great and loud Preacher.

And then in the Transfiguration, Jesus consulted with the Prophet Elijah, another personage who was the very opposite of humble.

So, yes, it is okay for those of dimished capacity to pretend that they are practicing some great virtue, when they are actually just incapable of anything more. But for those who do have any strength, they must remember that "From those to whom much has been given, much is expected".

I have experienced the intercession of more than a few Saints and Prophets, and have had audiance even with the Very Angel of God, and have been given at least one Spiritual Gift. So it is no longer allowed for me to be meek. Unlike those who have nothing, I must be busy making my returns on the Investments put into me.

Originally posted by Lucifer Sam



I'm pretty sure you violated the forum rule posted above, and I am going to complain about it.

.

Another reason I don't think you'll be eternally happy with your pretty girlfriend...

What real man would go running off to the moderators.... isn't that something like admitting that you are impotent and not equal to dealing with matters on your own.

Besides... if I have attacked you, I had my reasons. Undoubtably you provoked me with some stupidity.

You know, people really are stupid. Just the other day I was PM'd by somebody who could not figure out how to reply to one of my arguments and so he decided to try the gambit of pretending the argument was not important anyway and he offered to forget it all and be friends.

Does that actually ever work? Somebody who could not argue equally with me, decided to dismiss the importance of what I was campaigning on, for the sake of the importance of his "friendship". Well, I wondered aloud whether he could have been more of an idiot had he tried.

Now, I don't remember exactly what you said or did, or what I said back to offend you, but rest assured, you are not innocent, and I am always right.

Originally posted by Lucius


But I really don't think this what most protestants believe? I always thought they meant that Jezus died for the sins of our ancestors, so we could live without the burden of their sins. Regardless, we are still responsible for our sins, that is to say the ones we commit right now, in the present.

Well, yes, "most". But most people are a thoughtless herd anyway. It is the people who hold the reins of Society that we must worry about, and those people KNOW the Doctrine, and they exercise every loophole. They DO. Just look at the turn Western Civilization took when power went from Catholics and was taken up by the more extremely Paulist Protestants -- Slave Dealing, Rum Running, Imperialistic Wars, Opportunistic Revolutions, the Glorification of Greed in Capitalism, Industrialisation that had been built upon a lethal genocidal level of Child Labor (the English Census had shown that in the early 18th Century the life expectancy in the Industrial Towns was 17 years -- the Industrialists calculated on working their employees to death before they could reach adulthood). These were all conscious choices made by the Pillars of the Protestant Community.

There is a telling piece of literature from the 19th Century which reveals the extremes of Protestant Doctrine, and gives us some idea that at least an elite minority used Paulist Doctrine as a licence for Evil. "Confessions of a Justified Sinner" by James Hogg. The book is a classic and is still published by Everyman Library (they have a wonderful Hardbound Library, and the books are priced to be affordable, even while they are of the highest quality).

So, yes, while people accustomed to dismissing Conspiracy Theorists may suppose I am exaggerating or even fabricating these observations and opinions, one only needs to dig a little bit to find that Protestants in Leading Positions have consciously deliberated upon exploiting their Salvation. After all, you cannot tell people that they are "Once Saved Always Saved", Saved by Faith Alone, Saved by Faith and not by Works, and tell them that God is insulted by the "dirty rags of Righteousness", and demand that no one is saved until they confess themselves Original Sinners -- you can't have all of this insistence upon Sin and Forgiveness without expecting that at least a few people will not add the Two plus Two.

50 years ago when I was an innocent first off to college and met with my first serious temptations, of course I soon discerned the opportunities that were thrown wide open by these Protestant Doctrines. And it made me ashamed of my Religion. It must make many people ashamed of their Religion. Why do you suppose so many Spiritually minded Americans quit their Protestant and even their Catholic Churches. I suspect that they found themselves tempted BY THEIR RELIGION into sinning, and then subsequently felt betrayed. Where Religion should have been their Moral Support, it effectively became the Devil that whispered in their ear.

Originally posted by wombing


...some strange god who somehow faults us for being flawed creations....

..

Actually, if people are flawed it is because so many generations of conscious breeding have designed them to be flawed. If people had been chosing their mates for all of the right reasons, even for as few as 5 generations, the world would now be Perfect. But people are sinners because they breed in sin... for sin.

And stupidity...

Look at the Old Testament... the story about how Abraham had sent a servant off to get a wife of his son Issac. The Servant stopped at an oasis and was impressed by a woman who accosted a stranger with the equivalent of "Howdy Sailor! New in Town? What can I do for you, Big Boy?" Abraham's servent brought this whore home to be Mother of the Children of Abraham. She taught Jacob to scheme, lie and cheat, or rather it was born in him as he was his own Mother's son.

Anyway, you can't blame God for the unworthy partners we choose to have our children by.

Another reason I don't think you'll be eternally happy with your pretty girlfriend...

What real man would go running off to the moderators.... isn't that something like admitting that you are impotent and not equal to dealing with matters on your own. [/b]

A smart tactician uses his environment. You are going against the grain Leo. Remember what happened to Jesus. He went against the grain too. And no, I'm not christian, in any sense of the word.

While I appreciate you're invite to take matters into my own hands, if I DID do anything about it, I wouldn't write it on here, because of liability issues.

Why you think you know anything about Gwen and I, I don't know. Your opinion about us is worthless, and still has no point whatsoever in our argument.

Are you, or have you ever been with anyone other than yourself Leo? Anyone you paid money for, or who felt sorry for you does not count. Neither does your hand. Or your dog/cat/(other animal). Has anyone genuinely liked you? Your mother? I know your dad was in a hurry to get away, you already made that clear.

See, when people are like you, it means one of two things. Either you are naturally too rude and angry, not to mention full of yourself, to get along with and/or you aren't secure in anything you believe, so you come on to these forums and act like a stubborn ass to justify what you think to others. You know nothing about me, yet you are convinced you do. For every opinion about you that you argue away, you defeat your own about me. They are opinions Leo. I'm really making up my entire personality on here, do you know that, or am I?

Theres no real way for you, or anyone else to tell. I could believe and think totally different from what I do here. To me, you are a joke, like a jester who's pretending to be king, and forgot he was pretending. So what is it Leo, what has you set up like the Berlin Wall?

Did you not get hugged enough as a child? Did you have Freudian complexes? Does it matter? Why do you seem so vindictive, assaulting? Were you abused? No Leo, I don't feel mad or angry at you, just sad. Sad that no one has ever pointed out that your opinions are only worth as much as you are worth to other people. Since everyone seems to think your a real laugh, I guess we know what that says about your opinions?

See Leo, its not so hard to be you. You just have to think of what will irritate the most and say it. I find it hard to believe that you actually come on this forum for lucid dreaming. Do you? Maybe you did at first, but I think if the religion and philosophy forums were closed for long, you'd be long gone. Am I right?

Originally posted by Leo Volont


Yes, it offers great spiritual consolation for the weak and the stupid that it is not held against them on the Day of Judgement. However, Jesus never positively insisted that all nobility and superiority of personality and character had to be intentionally scuttled and lowliness and inferiority cultivated and indulged. Yes, the Beatitudes from the Sermon of the Mount mention meekness, but we also have "Blessed those who hunger and thirst for Righteousness, for they shall be filled". And those who have the light, are instructed to stand upon a Hill.

Well, Leo, I have to congratulate you, and not only for this post. You have single-handedly epitomized my definition of self-righteous: pride and ignorance.

Firstly, yes, those who hunger and thirst after rightousness shall be filled, but they're not supposed to advertise the fact that they are. Second, the people who are supposed to stand on a Hill because of the light which they have is to glorify God, not themselves, as God is the source of their light in the first place (that's in Matthew 5:16, by the way, part of the Sermon on the Mount).

Originally posted by Leo Volont


So, yes, while people accustomed to dismissing Conspiracy Theorists may suppose I am exaggerating or even fabricating these observations and opinions, one only needs to dig a little bit to find that Protestants in Leading Positions have consciously deliberated upon exploiting their Salvation. After all, you cannot tell people that they are "Once Saved Always Saved", Saved by Faith Alone, Saved by Faith and not by Works, and tell them that God is insulted by the "dirty rags of Righteousness", and demand that no one is saved until they confess themselves Original Sinners -- you can't have all of this insistence upon Sin and Forgiveness without expecting that at least a few people will not add the Two plus Two.

Now, as for this, Protestants could almost not be considered Christian in some respects. For one thing, the justification by faith alone isn't even supported by scripture that they used. They use the New Testament in its entirety, and in James 2:17, It says that "Faith without works is dead, being alone." So, apparently Luther was not as good a theologian as people thought.

Oh, and by the way, Leo, you PM'd me first, not the other way around. I just didn't feel like arguing with you if it wasn't going to get me anywhere. I don't engage in fruitless pursuits, and our "discussion" was one of them.
And you know, apparently you just like the confrontation of making people mad, because I see it all the time, and Gwendolyn isn't the only one who doesn't like it. Do you get some satisfaction from it? Or does it just make you feel better?

Actually, if people are flawed it is because so many generations of conscious breeding have designed them to be flawed. If people had been chosing their mates for all of the right reasons, even for as few as 5 generations, the world would now be Perfect. But people are sinners because they breed in sin... for sin[/b]

interesting thought.

i would say generations of unconscious breeding plays the biggest part in the state of the world...i'm at the age now where a fair number of my friends are having children, and not a single one has been anything other than an accident so far

why 5 generations?

Just a thought...
Call me silly, but didn't mister Luther come up with the whole protestant thing because he saw how the catholic church was abusing faith? Having people confess their venial sins and letting them buy off their mortal sins as long as the sum of money payed was big enough.

I'm not a religious person, so I can't say I've done a whole lot of research on this. It's just what I remember my history teacher telling me at school.
If what I'm saying is correct though, doesn't that mean that protestantism was actually a reaction to taking christian doctrine (and therefore the whole sinning thing) too lightly?


Some interesting things I noticed about Leo's posts

Originally posted by Leo Volont+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo Volont)</div>

Here is what you just said. You used to think I made sense, but since you have not been able to intellectually keep up with me, you decided to just give up and go back to your previous mindlessness. You were so happy back then, being stupid.

But, it doesn't work like that. You have bitten of the Fruit of Knowledge. The Innocence of Idiocy has been lost. You wish you could go back. You will find you can't.[/b]

Does this mean that when you are taken seriously at first, but then everyone that reads what you say thinks you're being ridiculous, the only conclusion you are able to draw is that none of the others were able to keep up with your intellectual development.
Do you think that makes any sense?

<!--QuoteBegin-Leo Volont
It is only more reason to continue unchanged. You see, I am so extremely busy answering correspondance while my "credibility" is so much in question, that I do not think I could handle the traffic if I so consciously sucked up and flattered this audiance the way some manipulative posers would do.

So let some of us be intellectually honest, and those who want to be popular can work on that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this can be paraphrased accurately as: "I'm so busy answering reactions to my stupid posts. If I made intelligent ones I'd be even busier, so I'll stick to stupidity."

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Another reason I don't think you'll be eternally happy with your pretty girlfriend...

What real man would go running off to the moderators.... isn't that something like admitting that you are impotent and not equal to dealing with matters on your own.

Besides... if I have attacked you, I had my reasons. Undoubtably you provoked me with some stupidity.

You know, people really are stupid. Just the other day I was PM'd by somebody who could not figure out how to reply to one of my arguments and so he decided to try the gambit of pretending the argument was not important anyway and he offered to forget it all and be friends.

Does that actually ever work? Somebody who could not argue equally with me, decided to dismiss the importance of what I was campaigning on, for the sake of the importance of his "friendship". Well, I wondered aloud whether he could have been more of an idiot had he tried.

Now, I don't remember exactly what you said or did, or what I said back to offend you, but rest assured, you are not innocent, and I am always right.

This post (moreso than all the others at least) leads me to believe that if everyone in this world had been like Leo Volont, all of the world would be at war at all time, and humanity probably wouldn't have survived to see the year 2000.

- He (again) attacks someone directly instead of attacking their argument.
- He proceeds to say that this person had best react to this by coming over to his house smash his head in with a baseball bat or something.
- He then decides to boast about calling someone else an idiot because he politely declined an attempt to get into an argument.
- He ends his post with the phrase "I am always right".

The truth about Leo
Judging these elements, some of them might have been said by someone completely confident in their views (i.e: an overly self-righteous person), but most of them don't have anything to do with this kind of hubris at all.
Although I'm no psychologist or anything, I think it would be a good guess to say that remarks like "I am always right" and using someone's girlfriend in an argument like this, not so much projects someone's infinite confidence, but instead shows their lack of it.

So there we have it people. Leo turns out to be a frustrated person in actuality. Lets all just leave the poor feller alone and take everything he says with an oversized grain of salt. It'll be better for those reading his posts, as well as for him.

Originally posted by Umbrella
So there we have it people. Leo turns out to be a frustrated person in actuality. Lets all just leave the poor feller alone and take everything he says with an oversized grain of salt. It'll be better for those reading his posts, as well as for him.

Indulgence does not strike me as the correct response to petulant, paranoid, unjustified, supercilious hubris (whether internally-felt or just a façade). Giving someone the silent treatment only works if they require more than the sound of their own voice to feel satisfied and fulfilled.