--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > That occured to me when writing it up. The exact > > *same* story can be pointed to by God freaks > > Where did that term come from? Is that the opposite of atheist > freaks?
Yes, and it's totally innocuous. It's a lingering Sixties-ism in my speech. So far on FFL I have used the term dozens of times, in contexts such as "enlightenment freak" and "Bruce Cockburn freak" or "music freak" (both referring to myself), or "neat freak," or "Mongo freak" (referring to fans of a certain short fictional detective). It's a slang way of referring to the odd things that some people get off on. It has no negative connotations, except, seemingly, in your mind. > And what's a God freak anyway? I think the term "freak" is > possibly reserved for those pushing an agenda, as it appears > you are doing now, my dear Buddhist atheist. Jim, since you stopped actively slamming me, I've taken a chance and replied to a few of your posts as if you were an adult, and as if you were actually a rational human being. My mistake. Back in the trashbin you go. Someday (in my opinion) you should try a little introspection and try to view yourself as others see you, not as you like to see yourself. First you react to me suggesting that Guru Dev would be shocked to hear himself referred to as "His Divinity" by his followers as if what I said was some kind of an insult. It was intended to be a *compliment*, dude. The term used to "honor" him by some...uh...Guru Dev freaks IMO *belittles* him, *belittles* a teacher of enlightenment, and *belittles* the whole process of enlightenment in my opinion, and that was what I intended to convey. But you perceived it as some kind of insult, and reacted as if you *personally* had been insulted. That's YOUR problem, dude, not mine. And now you take offense at a simple Sixties-ism, get all huffy and offended, and start hurling terms like "atheist" and "Buddhist" as if *they* were insults. Can't you *feel* the emotional loading that *you* place on such terms? I sure can, and I'd be willing to bet a few others on this forum have developed their intuition to the point that they can feel it, too. So back in the trashbin with you, dude. It's not worth trying to communicate with you if you're going to be so cluelessly reactive here. For the record, I don't care what other people believe, about God or about Guru Dev. I'm just trippin' on language, and occasionally pointing out when people make statements or ask questions based on *assumptions*. Their entire followup statement or question is based on *accepting* the assumption as true; otherwise the followup statement or question has no meaning. To react to the statement or to answer the question, one has to *accept* the assumption as true. Some of us don't accept those assumptions, is all. My "agenda" is merely to point out these assumptions when they occur, which is clearly in the spirit defined for this group on its main page. The vast majority of people on this planet believe in God, so much so that it has become a never-challenged assumption on their part. Some of *them* react strongly when someone points out the fact that it *is* an assumption, and a completely unproven assumption at that. It seems to me that this is what's going on here with your response. Despite your claim, you *are* "trying to start something." Instead, by acting like a petulant child, you have ended something instead, my experiment in seeing if you could have a rational conver- sation without...uh...freaking out when you encounter ideas that differ from yours. I wish you the best of luck with your life and your beliefs. May they both make you very happy. But dude...I'm just TIRED of all the prepubes- cent arguing here, and want to spend what little time I spend here talking with adults who can treat ideas that differ from their own ideas as Just Ideas, not some kind of attack. You don't seem to be one of those people.
