12 definitions by TarkanAttila22
Obsessive devotion combined with thoroughly invasive attempts to convert people to whatever is being devoted to.
Devotion alone is not harmful. Teaching people about one's devotions or beliefs isn't harmful.
But people are completely out-of-line when they force people into unwilling bondage with the threat of death.
Usually, fanaticism is driven by power-hunger, corruption given by power, the strong desire to be considered right, misinterpretation of religious texts or other manifestos and documents, and/or insanity.
It's not often monetarily driven. That problem is usually called greed, an obsession with money. (Which I suppose might be a type of fanaticism.)
Devotion alone is not harmful. Teaching people about one's devotions or beliefs isn't harmful.
But people are completely out-of-line when they force people into unwilling bondage with the threat of death.
Usually, fanaticism is driven by power-hunger, corruption given by power, the strong desire to be considered right, misinterpretation of religious texts or other manifestos and documents, and/or insanity.
It's not often monetarily driven. That problem is usually called greed, an obsession with money. (Which I suppose might be a type of fanaticism.)
It is not belief, but fanaticism, that is the cause of many of the world's problems.
Some Christians either have a rather blasé attitude towards their faith, or they practise raving fanaticism which would be dangerous to the public at large if carried out in office. (Many Protestant churches are possesed by fanaticism.) These two stereotypes give Christianity a bad, bad, bad image that it's rather undeserving of, as most Christians are moderates, or are the blasé kind aforementioned.
Similarly, the Crusades and the Inquisitions were rather embarrassing fanatical events in history that have nothing to do with the message of Christ, but with the craze of power and being right.
Communism during the Cold War was sometimes fanaticism rooted in a state cult (like Stalinism), or in atheism. This fanaticism led to the deaths of many religious people, guilty of little to nothing else.
The fanaticism of the Ku Klux Klan led to the unwarranted deaths of many African Americans.
Nazi fanaticism killed Jews, communists, homosexuals, Catholics, and soldiers who could all have been doing something more useful than dying.
So, therefore, I believe strongly that it's not Christianity, Islam, Republicanism, Democratism, liberality, conservatism, Zionism, Judaism, capitalism, communism, socialism, dictatorship, or any other belief or circumstance which causes trouble. It is when these things hold too much influence over our lives and cause us to do horrible things. Or, fanaticism.
Some Christians either have a rather blasé attitude towards their faith, or they practise raving fanaticism which would be dangerous to the public at large if carried out in office. (Many Protestant churches are possesed by fanaticism.) These two stereotypes give Christianity a bad, bad, bad image that it's rather undeserving of, as most Christians are moderates, or are the blasé kind aforementioned.
Similarly, the Crusades and the Inquisitions were rather embarrassing fanatical events in history that have nothing to do with the message of Christ, but with the craze of power and being right.
Communism during the Cold War was sometimes fanaticism rooted in a state cult (like Stalinism), or in atheism. This fanaticism led to the deaths of many religious people, guilty of little to nothing else.
The fanaticism of the Ku Klux Klan led to the unwarranted deaths of many African Americans.
Nazi fanaticism killed Jews, communists, homosexuals, Catholics, and soldiers who could all have been doing something more useful than dying.
So, therefore, I believe strongly that it's not Christianity, Islam, Republicanism, Democratism, liberality, conservatism, Zionism, Judaism, capitalism, communism, socialism, dictatorship, or any other belief or circumstance which causes trouble. It is when these things hold too much influence over our lives and cause us to do horrible things. Or, fanaticism.
by TarkanAttila22 July 24, 2010
An archaic operating system from the early 1990s.
Unlike modern PCs and MACs, it didn't have a START menu or toolbar; it had a program manager application. It was one of the first GUI Windows platforms, an upgrade of Windows 3.0.
3.1 was the first system I ever worked with, waaay back when I was four or five. 3.1 was a good machine, capable of handling any game from Reader Rabbit to the Oregon Trail (CD).
Unlike modern PCs and MACs, it didn't have a START menu or toolbar; it had a program manager application. It was one of the first GUI Windows platforms, an upgrade of Windows 3.0.
3.1 was the first system I ever worked with, waaay back when I was four or five. 3.1 was a good machine, capable of handling any game from Reader Rabbit to the Oregon Trail (CD).
Then we upgraded to Windows 95, which had a better interface.
But Windows 3.1 will be dear to me forever, for it was my first computer OS ever.
But Windows 3.1 will be dear to me forever, for it was my first computer OS ever.
by TarkanAttila22 September 9, 2009
The ability to do what you ought to do. Often confused with license, which is the ability to do whatever you want.
Why is freedom the ability to do what you OUGHT to do, and not what you WANT to do?
If we take it as a given that freedom is universal (or should be), then freedom cannot be whatever YOU want it to be. Let's say, for example, that you wanted to kill me. Your "freedom" would infringe on my own "freedom". Or let's say you wanted to raise taxes on me to increase your own freedom. That detracts from MY freedom.
Therefore, if all of us are entitled to freedom, this definition of freedom is invalid because it doesn't safely entitle everyone universal freedom.
The definition I have posted, that freedom is being able to do what one OUGHT to do, however, IS freedom because when one does what he OUGHT to do, instead of what he wants to, he infringes on no one else's freedom. He disrupts no one in their freedom, but instead directs them TO freedom if they are not free. The only person who can limit your freedom in a society where freedom is doing good is oneself.
Why is freedom the ability to do what you OUGHT to do, and not what you WANT to do?
If we take it as a given that freedom is universal (or should be), then freedom cannot be whatever YOU want it to be. Let's say, for example, that you wanted to kill me. Your "freedom" would infringe on my own "freedom". Or let's say you wanted to raise taxes on me to increase your own freedom. That detracts from MY freedom.
Therefore, if all of us are entitled to freedom, this definition of freedom is invalid because it doesn't safely entitle everyone universal freedom.
The definition I have posted, that freedom is being able to do what one OUGHT to do, however, IS freedom because when one does what he OUGHT to do, instead of what he wants to, he infringes on no one else's freedom. He disrupts no one in their freedom, but instead directs them TO freedom if they are not free. The only person who can limit your freedom in a society where freedom is doing good is oneself.
Father Corapi preaches the difference between freedom and license. Freedom is what Christianity is all about. God made us to be FREE. And even if that is what the Illuminati want, let's baffle 'em and be free in God!
by TarkanAttila22 September 6, 2010
by TarkanAttila22 August 18, 2009
In Russian and many other Slavic languages, God.
In Cyrillic: Бог
Sounds just like the English word "bog".
In Cyrillic: Бог
Sounds just like the English word "bog".
1) A Serbian proverb:
Cyrillic: Бог високо, a Русија далеко.
Latin: Bog visoko, a Rusija daleko.
Translation: God is high above, and Russia is far away. (Meaning that help is far and unlikely.)
2) A Russian Proverb:
Cyrillic: Бог тро́ицу лю́бит.
Latin: Bog troitsu lyubit
Translation: God likes trinity.
(Similar to "third time's the charm".)
Cyrillic: Бог високо, a Русија далеко.
Latin: Bog visoko, a Rusija daleko.
Translation: God is high above, and Russia is far away. (Meaning that help is far and unlikely.)
2) A Russian Proverb:
Cyrillic: Бог тро́ицу лю́бит.
Latin: Bog troitsu lyubit
Translation: God likes trinity.
(Similar to "third time's the charm".)
by TarkanAttila22 July 15, 2010
A beautiful, dark green island off of the coast of Britain which contains the following:
* Cattle and god Irish beef
* Sheep and good ole Irish wool
* Roman Catholics
* Award winning football teams
* Hurling (an Irish sport a tad like lacrosse)
* Catholics and Catholic churches
* A historical industry of potato farming and proud, strong Irishmen
* A modern industry in computer technology
* An immortal history in alcohol
* Catholics, Catholic priests, Catholic nuns
* The world's most recognised Catholic Saint, Saint Patrick
* A bitter history with Britain starting in the 1200s or so and continuing, possibly to this very day, including:
* The Norman conquests
* The Tudor reconquests and oppression
* The rebellions and the Penal Laws
* The Easter Rising of 1915
* Bloody Sunday 1971
* The Hunger Strike of 1981
* and all of the fighting, death, and protests made before, in between and after
* Catholic politicians who want a completely free Ireland
* Protestant politicians wanting Ireland to be in Union with Britain
* Drunkies in the public houses who couldn't care less
* Speaking of pubs, Guinness
And did I mention they're 80 percent Catholic?
* Cattle and god Irish beef
* Sheep and good ole Irish wool
* Roman Catholics
* Award winning football teams
* Hurling (an Irish sport a tad like lacrosse)
* Catholics and Catholic churches
* A historical industry of potato farming and proud, strong Irishmen
* A modern industry in computer technology
* An immortal history in alcohol
* Catholics, Catholic priests, Catholic nuns
* The world's most recognised Catholic Saint, Saint Patrick
* A bitter history with Britain starting in the 1200s or so and continuing, possibly to this very day, including:
* The Norman conquests
* The Tudor reconquests and oppression
* The rebellions and the Penal Laws
* The Easter Rising of 1915
* Bloody Sunday 1971
* The Hunger Strike of 1981
* and all of the fighting, death, and protests made before, in between and after
* Catholic politicians who want a completely free Ireland
* Protestant politicians wanting Ireland to be in Union with Britain
* Drunkies in the public houses who couldn't care less
* Speaking of pubs, Guinness
And did I mention they're 80 percent Catholic?
Ireland is the greenest country on Earth. Many a great person came from Ireland and spread the Irish spirit of hospitality, generosity, and humour to the shores of the nations. Truly, this country is a blessing to the world.
And most of them are Catholic, too.
And most of them are Catholic, too.
by TarkanAttila22 May 3, 2010
SSAD is an acronym for "same-sex attraction disorder". In olden times - before common sense became a precious commodity - this is what doctors and psychologists used to diagnose anyone who, instead of having the natural inclination to procreate with a member of the opposite sex, had a sexual attraction to one of his or her own sex.
Among modern secular society, SSAD has fallen into disuse, as the mental state it describes is considered "normal" among the secular world. (Although, on a side note, many things once considered crude, lewd, and despicable are now considered "normal" in the modern secular world.)
Many Christian groups still consider same-sex attractions a disorder. Some even make attempts to fix SSAD. Almost all Christians, however, declare that while SSA is a disorder, and sodomy a sin, we must "love the sinner and hate the sin".
Among modern secular society, SSAD has fallen into disuse, as the mental state it describes is considered "normal" among the secular world. (Although, on a side note, many things once considered crude, lewd, and despicable are now considered "normal" in the modern secular world.)
Many Christian groups still consider same-sex attractions a disorder. Some even make attempts to fix SSAD. Almost all Christians, however, declare that while SSA is a disorder, and sodomy a sin, we must "love the sinner and hate the sin".
If the first humans had had SSAD from the beginning, it is unlikely that any of us would be alive.
SSAD is a disorder because it is a disorder. It is not normal for a man to want to try to procreate with another man - for two men do not have enough eggs between them to procreate! Nor do two women have even a single sperm between them to fertilize their eggs.
Even if SSAD is genetic, it is still abnormal and counterproductive to the natural reproduction of human species. For no species can continue existing without having a desire to procreate, and SSAD is averse to this most natural desire of all animals.
SSAD is a disorder because it is a disorder. It is not normal for a man to want to try to procreate with another man - for two men do not have enough eggs between them to procreate! Nor do two women have even a single sperm between them to fertilize their eggs.
Even if SSAD is genetic, it is still abnormal and counterproductive to the natural reproduction of human species. For no species can continue existing without having a desire to procreate, and SSAD is averse to this most natural desire of all animals.
by TarkanAttila22 October 27, 2011