> > Bob Calco wrote: > >>> No, he meant that you've missed the point for so long that you have > >>> even forgotten how it looks like. > >>> You should have a picture to look at and sigh whenever you miss it. > >>> > > > > There is something uncharacteristically sentimental in the way you > drew that > > analogy that I did miss originally. Obviously you're relating "the > point" to > > the many women in your past whom you would forget if you didn't have > any > > pictures of them. > > > > That "the point" reminds you of this is almost Freudian. > > > > > And here I was, thinking Christians didn't like Freud. :-)
I don't, but for those of you still under the law of sin, obviously, his obsession with sexual imagery is relevant. ;) > > >> About the "self-image is challenged" all I can say is I've never > seen > >> somebody take such harsh judgment based on so little information. > >> > > > > You're obviously not the introspective sort. Do you read any of your > own > > posts before you whisk them off? > > > Never! But I'm not Christian and therefore do not strive to render the > other cheek. :-) That's right, you're a Catholic ex alter boy, you always render both cheeks. My bad. > > >> And I > >> thought Jesus said something about it, but maybe I'm wrong. > >> > > > > Point taken. I'm by no means perfect, either. Just seemed a rather > obvious > > inference based on knowing you in the admittedly limited (but not > exactly > > casual) way that this forum permits. > > > So Jesus said that if it was a "rather obvious inference" then it was > ok? What about casting the first stone? :-) Again, you remember just enough of these Biblical allusions to blow your own foot off. You are under no condemnation from me for being an offensive jerk, so there are no stones to worry about from my vector. > > > Hmm. To paraphrase your sensitive, non-judgmental advice to Pete, > maybe > > she's not the problem, maybe you are? > > > Oh rest assured, we both are! That's why we don't live together any > more > but are still in somewhat friendly terms. :-) Well, that's progress. Before the excuse was "She made me this way, so I did the noble thing and left". > > > Maybe just running to new sexual conquests in casual relationships > that make > > you feel like a conquering stallion is a sign of a deeper problem in > who and > > what you are, whereas committed relationships bring inner demons out > in ways > > that cause you to be afraid of yourself? > > > Mmmm......... no. Not at all. Any normal man could have the same > conquests, it does not make me feel anything special (remember it's > only > three women in two months, it's not a different woman every day). :-) Ah, THAT would make you feel special. At least we're getting to the bottom of your self-loathing problem. > > > I'm not judging, I'm just sayin'... > > > LOL > Luckily Jesus said nothing about hypocrisy or you and your priests > would be out of a job. ;-) All his points on hypocrisy had a much deeper meaning than is commonly assumed. We are incapable of being non-hypocritical because we, unlike He, are sinful. He was really talking about overcoming our sinful nature, which left to its normal operation will never be more than vain, even (if not especially) in its religiosity, as the Pharisees and scribes amply proved in His day. > > >> You > >> see, I abhor of people who abuse their strength or take advantage > of > >> the weak, so I could not stay. > >> > > > > Blaming her for your violent reactions is not very mature for a man > already > > at the big five-oh. > > > God! Is my english so bad? I meant I abhorred MY abuse of strength, and > that's why I did not like who I was at her side. You know, eliminate > the > cause of temptation and you eliminate the sin, your church has used > that > a lot. :-) Well, but the deeper issue is whence the violent temper? You'll be chopping off all kinds of limbs for offending you, even a few of your own, till you deal square with that. > > > She could have been the TV. Women with "battered wives syndrome" > typically > > don't get it till it's too late. They keep wanting to reconcile, > taking > > blame for their beloved's violent outbursts, who is altogether too > happy to > > oblige in displacing the blame. > > > Well mate, if you can't tell the difference between a TV and a > person.... > And the "battered wives" stuff is just another lowly blow, never hit > ANY > woman and remember I left because of the episode, so you won't be able > to tag me with that. :-) One day, that little temper of yours is going to hurt something besides an appliance, while you continue to seek refuge in the pleasures of the flesh. > > > For the record, I don't condemn you at all Ricardo. I know that God > loves > > you just as unconditionally and undeservedly as he does me or anybody > else. > > As we breathe, there is hope for us to find real peace and joy. > > > > All things considered I just thought it was rich that you and Jean > were > > lecturing me about getting some kind of point when I had not long ago > > witnessed your harsh dumping on Pete on the subject of luck with > women. > We are on different wavelengths. I never doubted that! > I don't give a damn about Pete, I just > dislike his usual misogynous speech, so whenever he gets on with it I > try to make him feel uncomfortably. It's like training a dog, he'll > finally get it (or we'll know his intellect is below dog's).... oh > sorry > here you go :-) Pete's a good guy, even if he is a latter day socialist. I don't think you're much less misogynous than you claim he is, you're just more hormonally in tune with your animal instincts and far more likely to let them override your cerebral cortex. I can't imagine Pete swatting a fly (which is probably why he was so impressed when Obama did it), much less nearly hitting a woman and busting a 32" TV with his bare hands. > > I do apologize for sounding harsher than I intended > Apology accepted. :-) > > > (I don't really want to > > sound any harsher than you do) > An eye for an eye? I thought you were Christian, not Jewish. Try > reading > the NEW testament instead of the OLD one. :-) No, more like treat others as you'd have them treat you. Since you already treat me this way, and I reciprocate, it would almost be impossible for either of us to violate the Golden Rule, unless one of us was a 32" TV. > > > , and didn't mean to wound you in any ways we > > aren't accustomed to wounding each other in this enlightened forum. > ;) > > > Oh poor darling! Are you telling us that all this was just to get even? > Just because I wounded your feelings in the past? :-) > LOL! :-) See, I finally display a little genuine Christian charity, and this is how he treats me. LOL! - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
