Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which is which?" --Sawfish
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
Try taking the Meyers-Briggs TypeIndicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which
is which?" --Sawfish
Wow I've changed as a person since the last I took this test?
I lost a letter and got a new one.
Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.
https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new
For more background...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which is which?" --SawfishWow I've changed as a person since the last I took this test?I lost a letter
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which is which?" --SawfishWow I've changed as a
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.I took this by professionals in my work place.
https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new
For more background...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
You definitely should be able to guess my four letters :)
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which is which?" --SawfishWow I've changed as a person since the last I took this test?I lost a letter
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~
This means you weren't on the extreme side of the letters.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rwikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which is which?" --SawfishWow I've
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.
90% of time I took it I got INTJ.
Once or twice I got INFJ.
But this time I got INTP.
Funny how I've changed.
On 9/22/23 11:33 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola "Which is which?" --SawfishWow I've changed as a person since the last I took this test?I lost a letter and got a new one.--
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-newFor more background...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator-- ~~~~~~~
This means you weren't on the extreme side of the letters.
The revised explanation for mine on the website--updated in 2021, as I understand it--is "bigoted right wing extremist".
On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.I took this by professionals in my work place.
https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new
For more background...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
You definitely should be able to guess my four letters :)Against all common sense and desire for self-preservation, here's mine:
ISTJ
Next question:
"Like, what's your sign, man?"
(Deeply exhales dope smoke...)
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:no way are you guys introverts, mannnnnnn!
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:Against all common sense and desire for self-preservation, here's mine:
Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.I took this by professionals in my work place.
https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new
For more background...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
You definitely should be able to guess my four letters :)
ISTJ
Next question:
"Like, what's your sign, man?"
(Deeply exhales dope smoke...)
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >> https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> > >> For more background... > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator > >> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Shit
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rtruity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> > >> For more background... > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator > >> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Shit
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >> https://www.
I can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :)
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:20:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> > >> For more background... > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator > >> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Shit
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >> https://www.
I can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :):D
On 25/09/2023 2:25 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/24/23 4:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:20:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r:D
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> OnI can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :)
9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22,
2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the
Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >>
https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_IndicatorFor more background... > >> > >>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> > >> Shit <----------------------------------------------------->-- > >>
Shinola > >> "Which is which?" --Sawfish > > I took this by
professionals in my work place. > > > > You definitely should be
able to guess my four letters :)> Against all common sense and
desire for self-preservation, here's mine: > > ISTJ > > Next
question: > > "Like, what's your sign, man?" > > (Deeply exhales
dope smoke...) no way are you guys introverts, mannnnnnn!
"Identify as..."
There's a term that 10 years ago had no meaning.
;^)
Feels closer to 3 years, can't be 10 surely?
On 9/24/23 4:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> > >> For more background... > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator > >> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Shit
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:20:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >> https://www.
"Identify as..."I can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :):D
There's a term that 10 years ago had no meaning.
;^)
On 9/24/23 4:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:20:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r:D
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> OnI can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :)
9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22,
2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the
Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >>
https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator >For more background... > >> > >>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- > >>
Shinola > >> "Which is which?" --Sawfish > > I took this byShit <----------------------------------------------------->
professionals in my work place. > > > > You definitely should be
able to guess my four letters :)> Against all common sense and
desire for self-preservation, here's mine: > > ISTJ > > Next
question: > > "Like, what's your sign, man?" > > (Deeply exhales
dope smoke...) no way are you guys introverts, mannnnnnn!
"Identify as..."
There's a term that 10 years ago had no meaning.
;^)
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 9:25:21 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> > >> For more background... > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator > >> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Shit
On 9/24/23 4:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:20:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >> https://www.
insanity. Dismiss them and you may soon find yourself dismissed.Remember that article by the teacher who said he had students now identifying as a dinosaur, a moon, a hologram, etc? Imagine standing in front of a class and having to maintain a straight face while treating these notions as something other than"Identify as..."I can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :):D
There's a term that 10 years ago had no meaning.
;^)
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 9:25:21 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new > >> > >> For more background... > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator > >> > >> -- > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Shit
On 9/24/23 4:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:20:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 20:02:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/22/23 11:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:30:19 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote: > >> Try taking the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. > >> > >> https://www.
insanity. Dismiss them and you may soon find yourself dismissed."Identify as..."I can identify as an extrovert to be all inclusive :):D
There's a term that 10 years ago had no meaning.
;^)
Remember that article by the teacher who said he had students now identifying as a dinosaur, a moon, a hologram, etc? Imagine standing in front of a class and having to maintain a straight face while treating these notions as something other than
Remember that article by the teacher who said he had students now
identifying as a dinosaur, a moon, a hologram, etc? Imagine standing
in front of a class and having to maintain a straight face while
treating these notions as something other than insanity. Dismiss them
and you may soon find yourself dismissed.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
Remember that article by the teacher who said he had students now identifying as a dinosaur, a moon, a hologram, etc? Imagine standing
in front of a class and having to maintain a straight face while
treating these notions as something other than insanity. Dismiss them
and you may soon find yourself dismissed.
If only we could treat the belief in robed sky wizards with the same derision.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:48:21 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
Remember that article by the teacher who said he had students now identifying as a dinosaur, a moon, a hologram, etc? Imagine standing
in front of a class and having to maintain a straight face while treating these notions as something other than insanity. Dismiss them and you may soon find yourself dismissed.
If only we could treat the belief in robed sky wizards with the same derision.This quip feels oddly off-the-mark.
it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yes
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps in
to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to be
clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would fire
a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a dinosaur"
or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get offended and posts
an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing really.
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yes
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps in
to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to be
clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would fire
a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a dinosaur"
or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get offended and posts
an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing really.
It just strikes me as odd to be concerned about some alleged coddling of nonsensical children's beliefs at some random school in the UK. Firstly
it's probably been misrepresented and magnified by right-wing media.
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
acceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?
I doubt if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things havegone a little too far.
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
Gracchus kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 18.15:gone a little too far.
I doubt if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have
Yes. But that's nothing compared to harm these people are doing to
children with their gender nonsense that encourages children towards
lasting emotional and physical harm.... it's outright criminal child abuse.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:24:04 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:gone a little too far.
Gracchus kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 18.15:
I doubt if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have
sister's doll one day. This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to girls. Does this mean the kidYes. But that's nothing compared to harm these people are doing to
children with their gender nonsense that encourages children towards
lasting emotional and physical harm.... it's outright criminal child abuse.
Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe of frilly dresses because he picked up his
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yesIt just strikes me as odd to be concerned about some alleged coddling of nonsensical children's beliefs at some random school in the UK. Firstly
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps in
to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to be
clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would fire
a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a dinosaur"
or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get offended and posts
an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing really.
it's probably been misrepresented and magnified by right-wing media.
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society. Why is that
acceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have gone a little too far. See the difference? I hope so.it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yes
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps in to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to be clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would fire
a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a dinosaur"
or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get offended and posts
an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing really.
It just strikes me as odd to be concerned about some alleged coddling of nonsensical children's beliefs at some random school in the UK. Firstly it's probably been misrepresented and magnified by right-wing media.Probably? To what lengths have you researched it?
Your response is no less knee-jerk to my reaction than mine was to reading the story in the first place.
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know areThat would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
acceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?A convenient simplification based on your initial assumption. I doubt if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the
Even though I went to public school in "the olden days," the teachers were hardly forcing religion upon us. "One nation under God" and Christmas were about it. You sound like someone forced into Catholic school studies and turned rabid by the hatedregimen.
Gracchus kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 18.15:
I doubt if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a
dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists
the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board
supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have gone a little too far.
Yes. But that's nothing compared to harm these people are doing to
children with their gender nonsense that encourages children towards
lasting emotional and physical harm.... it's outright criminal child
abuse.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:24:04 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:gone a little too far.
Gracchus kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 18.15:
I doubt if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have
Yes. But that's nothing compared to harm these people are doing toYes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth.
children with their gender nonsense that encourages children towards
lasting emotional and physical harm.... it's outright criminal child abuse.
But the current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe of frilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day. This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to girls. Does this mean the kid should now revert to being a boy or is it too late and better to identify as a gay girl instead? We are going to see a lot
jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
Well that's arguable.
On Islam I agree.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on
his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yes
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps
in to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to
be clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would
fire a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a
dinosaur" or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get
offended and posts an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing
really.
It just strikes me as odd to be concerned about some alleged coddling
of nonsensical children's beliefs at some random school in the
UK. Firstly it's probably been misrepresented and magnified by
right-wing media.
Probably? To what lengths have you researched it?
Your response is no less knee-jerk to my reaction than mine was to
reading the story in the first place.
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
That would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
acceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?
A convenient simplification based on your initial assumption. I doubt
if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in
nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher
address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have gone a little too far. See the
difference? I hope so.
Even though I went to public school in "the olden days," the teachers
were hardly forcing religion upon us. "One nation under God" and
Christmas were about it. You sound like someone forced into Catholic
school studies and turned rabid by the hated regimen.
jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
Well that's arguable. On Islam I agree.
Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely
feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the
current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe
of frilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.
This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents
are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to
girls. Does this mean the kid should now revert to being a boy or is
it too late and better to identify as a gay girl instead? We are going
to see a lot more psyches screwed up like this before the stupid fad
runs its course and fizzles out.
Gracchus kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 23.02:
That. ...And *IF* the boy/girl reaches puberty... as they can be
adult of the sex they were born in.
And even without blockers these ideas may and will confuse some people
who will then change sex at point, mutilating their genitals,
castrating themselves with a doctor. Totally sick.
It will end when enough people go to courts about regretting their
operations and being brainwashed to dot it. Suing the doctors etc.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
What's your source?
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
That would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic
and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact
at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice,
anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of
the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these institutions.
acceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?
A convenient simplification based on your initial assumption. I doubt
if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have gone a little too far. See the difference? I hope so
Even though I went to public school in "the olden days," the teachers
were hardly forcing religion upon us. "One nation under God" and
Christmas were about it. You sound like someone forced into Catholic school studies and turned rabid by the hated regimen.
Strawman... I didn't say teachers are forcing religion on students in
public schools. I said that teachers should react to student's
religious beliefs and statements with the same level of derision as a student "identifying as a dino".
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:have no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers.
What's your source?
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. Many peopleMoronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed byMore importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourageThat would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone
allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic
and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact
at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the
course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice,
anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time.
Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for
instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of
the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these
institutions.
That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery ratherthan listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.
Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,since it places high value on self-knowledge.
What I find distasteful about Bill MaherHe a ho!
types and his *brand* of atheism is that they aren't simply declining to accept a set of religious beliefs that require blind faith, or that they decline to accept the existence of any "higher power" without what they deem a reasonable standard ofempirical (or possibly experiential) evidence. They hold their own unshakable faith that human senses, science, and tools of logic at this point in history are sufficient to determine all they NEED to know about the universe we live in, including how it
Therefore, anyone who doesn't share this view across-the-board, and allows even the *possibility* of legitimate religious or spiritual value, is someone who believes in "the talking snake" (as Bill Maher would say) or for that matter, "robed skywizards."
Yes, I know you were being deliberately over-the-top to emphasize a point, but still...these really DO amount to strawmen.
It isn't a strawman at all. In fact, I was in the process of building an *actual* strawman when you posted again and disrupted my fun.Strawman... I didn't say teachers are forcing religion on students inacceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?A convenient simplification based on your initial assumption. I doubt
if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in
nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher
address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as
reasonable, than maybe things have gone a little too far. See the
difference? I hope so
Even though I went to public school in "the olden days," the teachers
were hardly forcing religion upon us. "One nation under God" and
Christmas were about it. You sound like someone forced into Catholic
school studies and turned rabid by the hated regimen.
public schools. I said that teachers should react to student's
religious beliefs and statements with the same level of derision as a
student "identifying as a dino".
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> Gracchus kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 23.02:>> That. ...And *IF* the boy/girl reaches puberty... as they can be> adult of the sex they were born in.>> And even without blockers these ideas may and will confuse some people> who willthen change sex at point, mutilating their genitals,> castrating themselves with a doctor. Totally sick.>> It will end when enough people go to courts about regretting their> operations and being brainwashed to dot it. Suing the doctors etc.Yeah, it's
Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed bycredible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someoneallegedly said hundreds or thousands of yearsago. Almost allreligions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic and fairly large on pure faith alone.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> writes:>>> Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely> feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the> current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe> offrilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.> This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents> are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same> boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:>> More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are>> harmful both to the child and to the rest ofsociety.>> Well that's arguable. On Islam I agree.How many people have been killed, enslaved or impoverished in the nameof Jesus? And we allow our teachers to coddle these beliefs, to letthem take root and corrupt our children?
But you have no trouble buying into a concept of "mental strength in
tennis" even though you can't prove it?
Every time you post e.g. that XY player is "mentally tougher", or
"wants to win more", you're expressing your beliefs and with authority
that you can't back up with facts.
Huh? I never commented on that. I definitely don't think there is asingular definition for "mental strength" or an entirely objective wayto measure it. Your characterization is unfounded.
But I've never heard you rejecting the concept either and I have never
heard you criticizing others who engage in that discussions and using
such concepts to make their points.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on
his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yes
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps
in to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to
be clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would
fire a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a
dinosaur" or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get
offended and posts an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing
really.
It just strikes me as odd to be concerned about some alleged coddling
of nonsensical children's beliefs at some random school in the
UK. Firstly it's probably been misrepresented and magnified by
right-wing media.
Probably? To what lengths have you researched it?
Your response is no less knee-jerk to my reaction than mine was toCan I see your source? It just doesn't track what I've read about it.
reading the story in the first place.
I know there was a story last year about a teacher getting fired for not meowing back at a student who identified as a cat. But it was a FAKE
STORY invented by some tik-tokker who even admitted it was fake. That
didn't stop it from being picked up by Tucker Carlson and others.
A quick search right now results in this fact check.... apparently this
is not a new phenomenon.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-furries-school/fact-check-no-evidence-that-u-s-schoolchildren-are-self-identifying-as-animals-and-disrupting-classrooms-idUSL1N2YN1O2
What's your source?
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
That would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic
and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact
at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice,
anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of
the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these institutions.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinelyI agree there is probably a "fad" component to this for many people who identify as transgender. That's why it doesn't matter and we shouldn't
feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the
current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe
of frilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.
This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents
are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to
girls. Does this mean the kid should now revert to being a boy or is
it too late and better to identify as a gay girl instead? We are going
to see a lot more psyches screwed up like this before the stupid fad
runs its course and fizzles out.
waste a lot of time on the topic. If it's a fad it WILL die out... sure
there might be a lot of people who regret it after the fact but regrets
are a part of life. I don't see the damage it causes to you or me who
aren't transgender.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
it cos your post literally offended him, he saw it as an attack on
his left-wing politics, which he puts #1 above everything else, yes
despite you being a well-known Dem yourself! it why he always jumps
in to defend this "self identity" and gender dumbness. He meant to
be clever bloke, surely would stop/think "only a total maroon would
fire a teacher for disagreeing with a kid that's he literally a
dinosaur" or laughing at such total dumbness, but no, he get
offended and posts an angry anti-Christian reply instead! amazing
really.
It just strikes me as odd to be concerned about some alleged coddling
of nonsensical children's beliefs at some random school in the
UK. Firstly it's probably been misrepresented and magnified by
right-wing media.
Probably? To what lengths have you researched it?
Your response is no less knee-jerk to my reaction than mine was toCan I see your source? It just doesn't track what I've read about it.
reading the story in the first place.
I know there was a story last year about a teacher getting fired for not meowing back at a student who identified as a cat. But it was a FAKE
STORY invented by some tik-tokker who even admitted it was fake. That
didn't stop it from being picked up by Tucker Carlson and others.
A quick search right now results in this fact check.... apparently this
is not a new phenomenon.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-furries-school/fact-check-no-evidence-that-u-s-schoolchildren-are-self-identifying-as-animals-and-disrupting-classrooms-idUSL1N2YN1O2
What's your source?
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
That would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic
and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact
at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice,
anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of
the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these institutions.
acceptable but not some harmless playing along with "I'm a dinosaur"?
A convenient simplification based on your initial assumption. I doubtOK, let's see the article you're talking about.
if anyone cares about a five-year-old pretending to be a dinosaur in nursery school games. But if a grade-school kid insists the teacher address him as "Your Royal T-Rex," and the school board supports it as reasonable, than maybe things have gone a little too far. See the difference? I hope so.
Even though I went to public school in "the olden days," the teachersStrawman... I didn't say teachers are forcing religion on students in
were hardly forcing religion upon us. "One nation under God" and
Christmas were about it. You sound like someone forced into Catholic school studies and turned rabid by the hated regimen.
public schools. I said that teachers should react to student's
religious beliefs and statements with the same level of derision as a student "identifying as a dino".
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rfrilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.> This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents> are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same> boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:>>> Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely> feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the> current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe> of
You only care about yourself don't you?
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to
be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us,
amazing!
On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote:people have no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers.
What's your source?
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. ManyMoronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by >> credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always aMore importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage >>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know areThat would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone
allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic
and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact
at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the >> course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice,
anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. >> Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for
instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of
the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these
institutions.
than listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery rather
since it places high value on self-knowledge.Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,
Interesting observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhism
as a philosophy, and not a religion.
If accurate, it might be best understood alongside epicurianism,
stoicism, etc.
But I don't need any of this, although it is sometimes
interesting/amusing that the tenets I've come to independently (mostly)
were already the basis of an organized philosophy.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > >> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes: > >> What's your source? > > I'mnot claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers. > > > >>>> More importantly, we
thousands of years ago. Almost all > >> religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic > >> and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we > >> excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these > >>Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by > >> credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a > >> "holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone > >> allegedly said hundreds or
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 00:20:54 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
I agree there is probably a "fad" component to this for many people who
Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely
feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the
current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe
of frilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.
This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents
are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same
boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to
girls. Does this mean the kid should now revert to being a boy or is
it too late and better to identify as a gay girl instead? We are going
to see a lot more psyches screwed up like this before the stupid fad
runs its course and fizzles out.
identify as transgender. That's why it doesn't matter and we shouldn't
waste a lot of time on the topic. If it's a fad it WILL die out... sure
there might be a lot of people who regret it after the fact but regrets
are a part of life. I don't see the damage it causes to you or me who
aren't transgender.
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> writes:
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to
be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us,
amazing!
Wait, you're in a women's prison with this guy?!
If only 1.6% of Americans identify as transgender, then I am sure it's
not a "problem" you or most people are dealing with on a regular basis.
It's typical right-wing "the end is nigh" bullshit.
I think this is excellent. I always identify as female when going to public showers & dressing rooms. Other times I identify as male.So I guess I'm what they call a gender-fluid.
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me aboutthe sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty brutal... manuallabor when they weren't meditating... meditating for ten hours a day andgetting hit with sticks if they slumpedor weren't sitting correctly.Hardly just "reading books". What do Christians do at church? Seems tome it's mostly just reading from "holy books"...
So you're seriously advocating this?
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.
Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
most brainwashed gen.
I'm saying it isn't and won't be a big problem, in my opinion. Even ifso many people got the operation what does it matter to you? How doesit change your life?At any rate, it's a major surgery with risks from a physical and asocietal perspective. Idon't believe so many people will have thecourage, commitment and opportunity to do it, first of all. If it's afad it will burn out.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told meaboutthe sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty
brutal... manuallabor when they weren't meditating... meditating for
ten hours a day andgetting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't
sitting correctly.Hardly just "reading books". What do Christians do
at church? Seems tome it's mostly just reading from "holy books"...
Your parents were wackos who did drugs, no?
Disregarding the fact that Buddhism is a false truth, only Christ is
the truth, but how can you be a Buddhist in America? For what
purposes?
You don't live in Asia, you're not yellow (I assume you're not
yellow), it's not your thing, not the thing of your people, so it's
basically a narcissistic urge to do...something, fill in the voids in
souls that can't be fullfilled, to create roots that can't be created.
It doesn't deserve a comment imo. It's not a serious thing.
Your parents career in Buddhist religion is like Michael Jordan's
baseball career.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
I'm saying it isn't and won't be a big problem, in my opinion. Evenifso many people got the operation what does it matter to you? How
doesit change your life?At any rate, it's a major surgery with risks
from a physical and asocietal perspective. I don't believe so many
people will have thecourage, commitment and opportunity to do it,
first of all. If it's afad it will burn out.
But you worry about the Jews don't you?
You'd gladly advocate America start wars to pursue Jewish interests
around the world or defend Jews if necessary, right?
Even if they're not US citizens.
Meanwhile you'd say you don't care what happens to Americans, or even
worse, American kids.
But when it comes to Jews, then you're quick to defend them, attack
their enemies and so on.
Why is that so?
meditating for ten hours a day and
getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
But you have no trouble buying into a concept of "mental strength in tennis" even though you can't prove it?
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
Well that's arguable. On Islam I agree.
How many people have been killed, enslaved or impoverished in the name
of Jesus? And we allow our teachers to coddle these beliefs, to let
them take root and corrupt our children?
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they
slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion. Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha.
There are stories about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
So you're seriously advocating this?
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.
Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
most brainwashed gen.
I'm saying it isn't and won't be a big problem, in my opinion. Even if
so many people got the operation what does it matter to you? How does
it change your life?
At any rate, it's a major surgery with risks from a physical and a
societal perspective. I don't believe so many people will have the
courage, commitment and opportunity to do it, first of all. If it's a
fad it will burn out.
Aren't adults supposed to protect children etc... not making them
suicidal wackos.
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 2.11:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> >> jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:>>> More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are>>>harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.>>>> Well that's arguable. On Islam I agree.> > How many people have been killed, enslaved or impoverished in the name> of Jesus? And we allow our teachers to coddle these beliefs, to let> them take
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> I'm saying it isn't and won't be a big problem, in my opinion. Even> ifso many people got the operation what does it matter to you? How> doesit change yourlife?At any rate, it's a major surgery with risks> from a physical and asocietal perspective. I don't believe so many> people will have thecourage, commitment and opportunity to do it,> first of all. If it's afad it will burn out.>>>> But you worry
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 9.40:
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> writes:
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to
be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us,
amazing!
Wait, you're in a women's prison with this guy?!
If only 1.6% of Americans identify as transgender, then I am sure it's
not a "problem" you or most people are dealing with on a regular basis.
It's typical right-wing "the end is nigh" bullshit.
So you're seriously advocating this?
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.
That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.
Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
most brainwashed gen.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rlife?At any rate, it's a major surgery with risks> from a physical and asocietal perspective. I don't believe so many> people will have thecourage, commitment and opportunity to do it,> first of all. If it's afad it will burn out.>>>> But you worry
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> I'm saying it isn't and won't be a big problem, in my opinion. Even> ifso many people got the operation what does it matter to you? How> doesit change your
You didn't answer my question.
Please answer it.
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's awhopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their bodies?
You should count those as well
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they
slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion. Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha.That stuff is all about instilling discipline, apparently. But they do
try to stress that it's not about rituals. I had this book of zen koans
in comic book form. One of them was of a western tourist visiting a monastery and noticing the zen master bowing in front of statues. He
says "Hey, I thought Zen wasn't about all this bowing and praying in
front of statues. I tell you what, I'm going to spit on your statues!".
The master replies "You spit, I bow" and carries on.
There are stories about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
Well, there are radically different forms of Buddhism. Other than the violence and discipline aspects, I'd say Zen does resemble a philosophy
more than a religion.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:people have no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers.
What's your source?
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. ManyMoronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed byMore importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage >>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know areThat would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone
allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic >> and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact >> at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the
course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice, >> anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time.
Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for >> instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of >> the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these
institutions.
than listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery rather
since it places high value on self-knowledge.Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,
not much substance to it. Know this cos used to talk the same nonsense about it.Interesting observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhism
as a philosophy, and not a religion.
If accurate, it might be best understood alongside epicurianism,
stoicism, etc.
But I don't need any of this, although it is sometimes
interesting/amusing that the tenets I've come to independently (mostly) were already the basis of an organized philosophy.
the brand of Buddhism you and Gracchus are talking about is just a cop-out though, all this talk of self-discovery, it's not a religion but a philosophy etc just means you're too scared to make a decision aka 'leap of faith', which really means there's
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.
1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been
about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of
the total operations in 30 years. That's a whopping 2% of those that
supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your
way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated
people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much
higher since they're the > most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they
went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"--
Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis thinks.
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me about
the sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty brutal... manual
labor when they weren't meditating... meditating for ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Hardly just "reading books". What do Christians do at church? Seems to
me it's mostly just reading from "holy books"...
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a manWait, you're in a women's prison with this guy?!
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to
be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us, amazing!
If only 1.6% of Americans identify as transgender, then I am sure it's
not a "problem" you or most people are dealing with on a regular basis.
It's typical right-wing "the end is nigh" bullshit.
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong.
For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact, but every non-Christian religion and many Christian denominations you disagree with. So your leap of faith is as much an act of willful denial.I'll take the Buddhists any day over that.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
I think this is excellent. I always identify as female when going to public showers & dressing rooms. Other times I identify as male.So I guess I'm what they call a gender-fluid.
If you can be happy or sad and have mood swings it only makes sense that you have gender swings too?
Lol.
It's beyond pale to even discuss this.
We should just go at the root of the problems.
The Jews.
Or if you demand we be politically correct, then ok.
The Jews who run West.
https://rac.org/blog/what-torah-teaches-us-about-gender-fluidity-and-transgender-justice
https://jewishaction.com/religion/how_the_torah_helped_shape_the_modern_world/
Or the Jew York Times...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/opinion/trans-teen-suicide-judaism.html
Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders. It’s Time We Did, Too.
March 18, 2023
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their bodies?
You should count those as well
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 9.40:
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> writes:
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to
be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us,
amazing!
Wait, you're in a women's prison with this guy?!
If only 1.6% of Americans identify as transgender, then I am sure it's
not a "problem" you or most people are dealing with on a regular basis.
It's typical right-wing "the end is nigh" bullshit.
So you're seriously advocating this?
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.
That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.
Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
most brainwashed gen.
The Iceberg kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 9.10:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 00:20:54 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
I agree there is probably a "fad" component to this for many people who
Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely
feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the
current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe >>>> of frilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.
This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents
are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same
boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to
girls. Does this mean the kid should now revert to being a boy or is
it too late and better to identify as a gay girl instead? We are going >>>> to see a lot more psyches screwed up like this before the stupid fad
runs its course and fizzles out.
identify as transgender. That's why it doesn't matter and we shouldn't
waste a lot of time on the topic. If it's a fad it WILL die out... sure
there might be a lot of people who regret it after the fact but regrets
are a part of life. I don't see the damage it causes to you or me who
aren't transgender.
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
I think this is excellent. I always identify as female when going to
public showers & dressing rooms. Other times I identify as male.
So I guess I'm what they call a gender-fluid.
https://www.quora.com/I-m-genderfluid-My-gender-switches-multiple-times-a-day-nearly-every-day-and-it-sucks-What-can-I-do
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks
you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes
around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the
number with youth would be much higher since they're the > most
brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear,
the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
isn't this kind of kindergarten bullying.
Skriptis has a point. And Finland is not the best example as US is front runner on these things,
20+ percentages of Gen Z identify as lgbtq.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
you would defend this phenomenon...
doesn't matter how against common sense something is as long it's part
of leftist agenda sphere.
You would make a great loyal voter for the
green party.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:people have no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers.
What's your source?
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. ManyMoronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by >>>> credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always aMore importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage >>>>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know areThat would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher.
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone
allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic >>>> and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact >>>> at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the >>>> course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice,
anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. >>>> Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for >>>> instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of >>>> the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these
institutions.
than listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.
That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery rather
since it places high value on self-knowledge.
Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,
not much substance to it. Know this cos used to talk the same nonsense about it.Interesting observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhismthe brand of Buddhism you and Gracchus are talking about is just a cop-out though, all this talk of self-discovery, it's not a religion but a philosophy etc just means you're too scared to make a decision aka 'leap of faith', which really means there's
as a philosophy, and not a religion.
If accurate, it might be best understood alongside epicurianism,
stoicism, etc.
But I don't need any of this, although it is sometimes
interesting/amusing that the tenets I've come to independently (mostly)
were already the basis of an organized philosophy.
Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming thesedrugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.Now if this is beyond the reach of the law, there's no chance that any of the sex change
On 9/26/23 11:34 PM, *skriptis wrote:m not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers. > > > >>>> More importantly,
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > >> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes: > >> What's your source? > > I'
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
This is very good stuff--a good topic.
To start, the most certain belief that I hold is that no one can have absolute knowledge of anything. Only relative knowledge.
And yet people must have a belief system of sorts in order to even get
out of bed.
Working from this, and starting probably about 45-50 years ago, I began
to build my personal belief on things that I, personally, have see occur repeatedly under the same, or near same, circumstances. You use
deductive logic to determine this, identifying and defining *specific* instances of events, and the phenomena surrounding them.
But that is very narrow--far too narrow to function in daily life, so
you use inductive reasoning to apply to new events as they arrive. First step is to ask yourself if this new event fits a pattern that matches
one or more of the specific instances that you've explored with
deductive logic--which is sorta your database. If not, you must apply deductive logic to this instance; if not, you need to see which of the events in your database the event resembles, and then decide if it's reasonable to make an analogy to it, in terms of how best to deal with it.
There is of course some risk in this part of the operation, but if you really must take action, you to take the risk, or else remain in a
passive state.
Over time, the database part gets real big, and it makes it possible to apply the database to most incoming events to come up with a
reasonable--and quick--inductive solution. And if the analogy is wrong
and the solution is incorrect, don't be a complete numbnuts by insisting that it's the correct solution when you can see that it's not.
Anyway, that's pretty much my belief system. Very, very little comes directly from books, or other external sources.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:or weren't sitting correctly.Hardly just "reading books". What do Christians do at church? Seems tome it's mostly just reading from "holy books"...
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me aboutthe sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty brutal... manuallabor when they weren't meditating... meditating for ten hours a day andgetting hit with sticks if they slumped
Your parents were wackos who did drugs, no?
Disregarding the fact that Buddhism is a false truth, only Christ is the truth,
but how can you be a Buddhist in America? For what purposes?that can't be created.
You don't live in Asia, you're not yellow (I assume you're not yellow), it's not your thing, not the thing of your people, so it's basically a narcissistic urge to do...something, fill in the voids in souls that can't be fullfilled, to create roots
It doesn't deserve a comment imo.But you've got to admit: Jesus had troubles with the off-speed pitch.
It's not a serious thing.
Your parents career in Buddhist religion is like Michael Jordan's baseball career.
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and
getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion.
Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha. There are stories
about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
On 9/26/23 11:34 PM, *skriptis wrote:
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rThis is very good stuff--a good topic.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On
9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023
at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > >> Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> writes: > >> What's your source? > > I'm not
claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just
making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based
on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by
right-wingers. > > > >>>> More importantly, we as a society already
coddle and even encourage > >>>> moronic religious beliefs in
children. Beliefs which we know are > >>>> harmful both to the child
and to the rest of society. > >>> That would be your stereotype of
religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher. > >> Moronic because there is no
religious belief I know of that is backed by > >> credible evidence.
No, the basis for the belief is almost always a > >> "holy text" of
mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone > >> allegedly
said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all > >> religions
(maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic > >> and
fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we > >>
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these >
fact > >> at worst? > >> I say dangerous because objectively we canbeliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted
see that religion has > >> inflicted death, slavery and
impoverishment on countless people over the > >> course of human
history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice, > >> anger,
fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. >
for > >> instance, have also emerged from stable institutions foundedOkay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries,
by > >> religious organizations. I don't see these things as the
expected > >> product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather
a byproduct of > >> the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that
comes with these > >> institutions. > > When it comes to religious
doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem
with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even
when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until*
that point. Many people have no problem with living their life by
those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid. >
I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason toThat's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic
Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery rather than
listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those
"authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon
their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any
deity or prophet. > > > > Buddhism (in its various branches) is a
different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called
"personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I
have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it
either, since it places high value on self-knowledge.> Interesting
observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhism > as a
philosophy, and not a religion. > > If accurate, it might be best
understood alongside epicurianism, > stoicism, etc. > > But I don't
need any of this, although it is sometimes > interesting/amusing that
the tenets I've come to independently (mostly) > were already the
basis of an organized philosophy.the brand of Buddhism you and
Gracchus are talking about is just a cop-out though, all this talk of
self-discovery, it's not a religion but a philosophy etc just means
you're too scared to make a decision aka 'leap of faith', which
really means there's not much substance to it. Know this cos used to
talk the same nonsense about it.
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
To start, the most certain belief that I hold is that no one can have absolute knowledge of anything. Only relative knowledge.
And yet people must have a belief system of sorts in order to even get
out of bed.
Working from this,
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 1:28:38 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Like Mexican Catholicism and Polish Catholicism.
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:That is a very important point. Tibetan Buddhism for example is a world away from Zen Buddhism.
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:That stuff is all about instilling discipline, apparently. But they do
meditating for ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if theySounds a bit like... some weird religion. Also, they do worship the
slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
image/statue of Buddha.
try to stress that it's not about rituals. I had this book of zen koans
in comic book form. One of them was of a western tourist visiting a
monastery and noticing the zen master bowing in front of statues. He
says "Hey, I thought Zen wasn't about all this bowing and praying in
front of statues. I tell you what, I'm going to spit on your statues!".
The master replies "You spit, I bow" and carries on.
There are stories about Buddha making miracles.Well, there are radically different forms of Buddhism. Other than the
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
violence and discipline aspects, I'd say Zen does resemble a philosophy
more than a religion.
Besides, I did not characterize Buddhism as a philosophy. Sawfish did that in response to my post, and he was specifically talking about *early* Buddhism.
Also, Buddhists don't worship the Buddha (Gautama) as a god/demigod and he never wanted to be seen that way. His statues are not idols. They revere him as a model for self-transformation.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:31:31 PM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:people have no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
What's your source?I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers.
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. Many"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone >>>>> allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost allMore importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage >>>>>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are >>>>>>> harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.That would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher. >>>>> Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by >>>>> credible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always a
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic >>>>> and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact >>>>> at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the >>>>> course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice, >>>>> anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. >>>>> Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for >>>>> instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of >>>>> the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these
institutions.
than listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.
That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery rather
since it places high value on self-knowledge.
Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,
s not much substance to it. Know this cos used to talk the same nonsense about it.Interesting observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhismthe brand of Buddhism you and Gracchus are talking about is just a cop-out though, all this talk of self-discovery, it's not a religion but a philosophy etc just means you're too scared to make a decision aka 'leap of faith', which really means there'
as a philosophy, and not a religion.
If accurate, it might be best understood alongside epicurianism,
stoicism, etc.
But I don't need any of this, although it is sometimes
interesting/amusing that the tenets I've come to independently (mostly)
were already the basis of an organized philosophy.
It is not simply a philosophy. If you are confused, research it.religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong.
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact, but every non-Christian religion and many Christian denominations you disagree with. So your leap of faith is as much an act of willful denial. I'll take the Buddhists any day overthat.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> Wrote in message:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong.
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
Likewise, we have millions of fedfans who think their guy is the best, and we have millions of djokerfans who think their guy is the best.Yeah, but I saw, with my own eyes, Djokovich win the 2019 Wimbledon.
They're mutually exclusive as well.
And?
The fact something is mutually exclusive doesn't mean both are wrong, one is always true as evidences are overwhelming.
Christ had risen from the dead.
What more do you want?
Fedfans are no different than Moslems really.
Millions can be wrong.
that.For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact, but every non-Christian religion and many Christian denominations you disagree with. So your leap of faith is as much an act of willful denial.I'll take the Buddhists any day over
I see, you prefer Serena as the best player ever?
On 9/27/23 1:11 AM, TT wrote:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and
getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion.
Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha. There are stories
about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
No. It was co-opted by a priesthood, much like with early Christianity.
The main difference is that in early Buddhism there were no miracles to convince people that Siddartha could deliver.
You had to try it out.
Not for me.
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 2.11:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:
More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage
moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are
harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.
Well that's arguable. On Islam I agree.
How many people have been killed, enslaved or impoverished in the name
of Jesus? And we allow our teachers to coddle these beliefs, to let
them take root and corrupt our children?
Some, but not really with current Christianity.
I guess there was Spanish Inquisition, US witch-hunts etc.
Crusades however have been unfairly maligned in popular culture as
they were mostly a reaction to Islamic aggression.
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks >>>> you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes
around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the
number with youth would be much higher since they're the > most
brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, >>>> the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...You are tiny.
isn't this kind of kindergarten bullying.
Skriptis has a point. And Finland is not the best example as US is front runner on these things,I would guess Finland is a more libbiral place to get the operation done than the US.
20+ percentages of Gen Z identify as lgbtq.It's "t" only here.
But naturally as a woke homosexualIsn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
you would defend this phenomenon...You misunderstand. What else is new.
doesn't matter how against common sense something is as long it's partNah. That's just what the little Trumpskies would like to think.
of leftist agenda sphere.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:rharmful both to the child and to the rest of society.>>>> Well that's arguable. On Islam I agree.> > How many people have been killed, enslaved or impoverished in the name> of Jesus? And we allow our teachers to coddle these beliefs, to let> them take
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 2.11:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> >> jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:>>> More importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are>>>
So was inquisition a reaction to Jewish subversion.
Meaning in current order it's even more maligned.
On 9/27/23 12:17 AM, *skriptis wrote:slumped or weren't sitting correctly.Hardly just "reading books". What do Christians do at church? Seems tome it's mostly just reading from "holy books"...
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me aboutthe sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty brutal... manuallabor when they weren't meditating... meditating for ten hours a day andgetting hit with sticks if they
Your parents were wackos who did drugs, no?
Gosh. That sounded like my cousin when he was at Tassajara, in the 60s-70s.
He said that he was sitting, being "corrected" with a stick, and a form
of enlightenment came to him, after more than a year:
"What in the hell am I doing here, letting someone beat me with a stick?"
On 9/27/23 5:00 AM, Gracchus wrote:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong.
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
From my perspective, both groups are dead wrong.
No one knows "the truth". Life is trying to get as close as you can on a
few important aspects, simply for survival and success.
There is nothing beyond that so far as I can see.
On 27.9.2023 18.22, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/26/23 11:34 PM, *skriptis wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rThis is very good stuff--a good topic.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On >>> 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023
at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > >> Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> writes: > >> What's your source? > > I'm not
claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just
making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based >>> on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by
right-wingers. > > > >>>> More importantly, we as a society already
coddle and even encourage > >>>> moronic religious beliefs in
children. Beliefs which we know are > >>>> harmful both to the child
and to the rest of society. > >>> That would be your stereotype of
religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher. > >> Moronic because there is no
religious belief I know of that is backed by > >> credible evidence.
No, the basis for the belief is almost always a > >> "holy text" of
mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone > >> allegedly
said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all > >> religions
(maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic > >> and >>> fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we > >>
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these >
fact > >> at worst? > >> I say dangerous because objectively we canbeliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted
see that religion has > >> inflicted death, slavery and
impoverishment on countless people over the > >> course of human
history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice, > >> anger,
fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time. >
expected > >> product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather >>> a byproduct of > >> the stability and often ill-gotten wealth thatOkay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, >>> for > >> instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded >>> by > >> religious organizations. I don't see these things as the
comes with these > >> institutions. > > When it comes to religious
doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem
with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even
when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until*
that point. Many people have no problem with living their life by
those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid. > >>> > > > That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. >>> I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to
embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic
Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery rather than
listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those >>> "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon
their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any
deity or prophet. > > > > Buddhism (in its various branches) is a
different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called >>> "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I
have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it
either, since it places high value on self-knowledge.> Interesting
observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhism > as a
philosophy, and not a religion. > > If accurate, it might be best
understood alongside epicurianism, > stoicism, etc. > > But I don't
need any of this, although it is sometimes > interesting/amusing that >>> the tenets I've come to independently (mostly) > were already the
basis of an organized philosophy.the brand of Buddhism you and
Gracchus are talking about is just a cop-out though, all this talk of >>> self-discovery, it's not a religion but a philosophy etc just means
you're too scared to make a decision aka 'leap of faith', which
really means there's not much substance to it. Know this cos used to
talk the same nonsense about it.
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
To start, the most certain belief that I hold is that no one can have absolute knowledge of anything. Only relative knowledge.Deep.
And yet people must have a belief system of sorts in order to even getThe belief that the rent has to be paid should make for a pretty
out of bed.
convincing system. Believing that the alarm clock will ring helps too. Curiously enuff, I've never gone as far as testing this system.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.Now if this is beyond the reach of the law, there's no chance that any of the sex change
Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these
Anarchy.
Hell on earth.
In fact it's Gotham city.
Gotham City is what Jews have always had in store for us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman
Created by
Bob Kane
Bill Finger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kane
Robert Kahn was born in New York City, New York.His parents, Augusta and Herman Kahn, an engraver, were of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Finger
Bill Finger was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1914 to an Ashkenazi Jewish family.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 16:33:51 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:slumped or weren't sitting correctly.Hardly just "reading books". What do Christians do at church? Seems tome it's mostly just reading from "holy books"...
On 9/27/23 12:17 AM, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me aboutthe sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty brutal... manuallabor when they weren't meditating... meditating for ten hours a day andgetting hit with sticks if they
what about Pelle? he enjoys being beaten with a stick repeatedly on RST and elsewhere!Gosh. That sounded like my cousin when he was at Tassajara, in the 60s-70s. >>
Your parents were wackos who did drugs, no?
He said that he was sitting, being "corrected" with a stick, and a form
of enlightenment came to him, after more than a year:
"What in the hell am I doing here, letting someone beat me with a stick?"
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:37:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/27/23 1:11 AM, TT wrote:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:No. It was co-opted by a priesthood, much like with early Christianity.
meditating for ten hours a day andSounds a bit like... some weird religion.
getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha. There are stories
about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
The main difference is that in early Buddhism there were no miracles to
convince people that Siddartha could deliver.
You had to try it out.Why is it such a big deal to try it out? That seems preferable to relying on a promise that if you live your life according to some doctrine (or at least try to), you'll find out at the end it was all worth it. Unless it wasn't.
Not for me.
On 27.9.2023 10.08, TT wrote:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 9.40:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in >>> prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to >>> be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us,
amazing!
Wait, you're in a women's prison with this guy?!
If only 1.6% of Americans identify as transgender, then I am sure it's
not a "problem" you or most people are dealing with on a regular basis. >>
It's typical right-wing "the end is nigh" bullshit.
So you're seriously advocating this?
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been
about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a whopping 2% of those that
supposedly identify as trannies.
Me thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their bodies?
You should count those as wellWhen I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis thinks.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 1:28:38 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they
slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion. Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha.That stuff is all about instilling discipline, apparently. But they do
try to stress that it's not about rituals. I had this book of zen koans
in comic book form. One of them was of a western tourist visiting a monastery and noticing the zen master bowing in front of statues. He
says "Hey, I thought Zen wasn't about all this bowing and praying in
front of statues. I tell you what, I'm going to spit on your statues!". The master replies "You spit, I bow" and carries on.
There are stories about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
Well, there are radically different forms of Buddhism. Other than the violence and discipline aspects, I'd say Zen does resemble a philosophy more than a religion.That is a very important point. Tibetan Buddhism for example is a world away from Zen Buddhism. Besides, I did not characterize Buddhism as a philosophy. Sawfish did that in response to my post, and he was specifically talking about *early* Buddhism.
Also, Buddhists don't worship the Buddha (Gautama) as a god/demigod and he never wanted to be seen that way. His statues are not idols. They revere him as a model for self-transformation.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 11:16:38 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis thinks.
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their bodies? >>>
You should count those as well
only cosas soon as you give him answer your whole political narrative will collapse, same as why you won't answer the question "What is a woman?" BOOM!
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:31:31 PM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:people have no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers.
What's your source?
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. Manycredible evidence. No, the basis for the belief is almost always aMore importantly, we as a society already coddle and even encourage >>>> moronic religious beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are >>>> harmful both to the child and to the rest of society.That would be your stereotype of religious beliefs, ala Bill Maher. >> Moronic because there is no religious belief I know of that is backed by
"holy text" of mysterious origin, or recitation of something someone >> allegedly said hundreds or thousands of years ago. Almost all
religions (maybe all) expect a follower to swallow something fantastic
and fairly large on pure faith alone. Tell me, why aren't we
excoriating teachers for "failing to correct students" about these
beliefs which are unproven at best, and contradictory to accepted fact
at worst?
I say dangerous because objectively we can see that religion has
inflicted death, slavery and impoverishment on countless people over the
course of human history. Religious beliefs have encouraged prejudice, >> anger, fear and pitted groups against each other since the dawn of time.
Okay, it's not ALL bad. Arts, literacy and scientific discoveries, for
instance, have also emerged from stable institutions founded by
religious organizations. I don't see these things as the expected
product of religion (eg. control) itself though. Rather a byproduct of
the stability and often ill-gotten wealth that comes with these
institutions.
rather than listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery
since it places high value on self-knowledge.Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,
s not much substance to it. Know this cos used to talk the same nonsense about it.Interesting observation, Gracchus. I have differentiated early Buddhism as a philosophy, and not a religion.
If accurate, it might be best understood alongside epicurianism, stoicism, etc.
But I don't need any of this, although it is sometimes interesting/amusing that the tenets I've come to independently (mostly) were already the basis of an organized philosophy.
the brand of Buddhism you and Gracchus are talking about is just a cop-out though, all this talk of self-discovery, it's not a religion but a philosophy etc just means you're too scared to make a decision aka 'leap of faith', which really means there'
It is not simply a philosophy. If you are confused, research it.religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong. For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact,
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong. For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact,
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
no, they are definitely wrong as Jesus is the only one to say "I am the way, the truth and the life". Mohammed died in his daughter's arms, Buddha died from food poisoning, Jesus died on the cross but rose again and ascended to Heaven. There's nocompetition.
On 9/27/23 12:08 AM, TT wrote:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 9.40:
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> writes:
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
How about woke judges/politicians sending male rapists who pretend to
be female to women only prisons, oh no this stuff doesn't affect us,
amazing!
Wait, you're in a women's prison with this guy?!
If only 1.6% of Americans identify as transgender, then I am sure it's
not a "problem" you or most people are dealing with on a regular basis.
It's typical right-wing "the end is nigh" bullshit.
So you're seriously advocating this?
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.
That makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.
Of course the number with youth would be much higher since they're the
most brainwashed gen.
No, no, he has a point.
And a 1.6% suicide rate would also be similarly trivial. Not something
that would impact us very much.
On 9/26/23 11:52 PM, TT wrote:
The Iceberg kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 9.10:Certainly the logic backs you up, TT.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 00:20:54 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
I agree there is probably a "fad" component to this for many people who >>>> identify as transgender. That's why it doesn't matter and we shouldn't >>>> waste a lot of time on the topic. If it's a fad it WILL die out... sure >>>> there might be a lot of people who regret it after the fact but regrets >>>> are a part of life. I don't see the damage it causes to you or me who
Yes, good point. Maybe one child in a thousand grows up genuinely
feeling their gender was not "assigned" properly at birth. But the
current societal climate has parents ready to buy their son a wardrobe >>>>> of frilly dresses because he picked up his sister's doll one day.
This is supposed to prove how open-minded and progressive the parents >>>>> are, when in truth it is a self-serving act. Meanwhile, the same
boy-turned--girl hits puberty and realizes he/she is attracted to
girls. Does this mean the kid should now revert to being a boy or is >>>>> it too late and better to identify as a gay girl instead? We are going >>>>> to see a lot more psyches screwed up like this before the stupid fad >>>>> runs its course and fizzles out.
aren't transgender.
cos they say we must legally verbally accept them and we'll be put in
prison if we call them the wrong "gender" or dispute that a man
wearing a dress can go into the gym shower where our daughters are.
I think this is excellent. I always identify as female when going to
public showers & dressing rooms. Other times I identify as male.
So I guess I'm what they call a gender-fluid.
https://www.quora.com/I-m-genderfluid-My-gender-switches-multiple-times-a-day-nearly-every-day-and-it-sucks-What-can-I-do
If it's true that women can have penises, and men can have vaginas, this means that the external reproductive paraphernalia is of no more
importance in establishing biological sex identity than a mole or hair
color. So the evident fact that your dick is waving free, in the breeze,
for all to see, in no way disqualifies you from showering with the ladies.
Carry on, my good man.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:46:45 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong.
On 9/27/23 5:00 AM, Gracchus wrote:
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
the universe works. And the same applies to atheists.From my perspective, both groups are dead wrong.Yes, of course it's a possibility both are wrong. My point was merely that a person can maintain faith and even certainty in that faith and still be fully mistaken. That being the case, no acolyte or religious authority can dictate to anyone else how
No one knows "the truth". Life is trying to get as close as you can on aThe idea of achieving enlightenment within your lifetime is learning the truth. That is the appeal of Buddhist or yogic practice. But if you don't believe this really happens for anyone, well I can't prove it.
few important aspects, simply for survival and success.
There is nothing beyond that so far as I can see.
On 9/27/23 8:15 AM, *skriptis wrote:these drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.Now if this is beyond the reach of the law, there's no chance that any of the sex
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming
Anarchy.
Hell on earth.
In fact it's Gotham city.
Gotham City is what Jews have always had in store for us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman
Created by
Bob Kane
Bill Finger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kane
Robert Kahn was born in New York City, New York.His parents, Augusta and Herman Kahn, an engraver, were of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Finger
Bill Finger was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1914 to an Ashkenazi Jewish family.
skript, I am going to ask a question that has occurred to me, and it's
fine if you do not answer it.
The miracle of the resurrection was witnessed and attested to by Jews
who, as I see it, basically took the charismatic appeal of Jesus, and
ran with it, largely to their own benefit.
Have you ever entertained this interpretation?
This is of course not a conventional interpretation, but ...
On 9/27/23 3:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.
1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been
about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of
the total operations in 30 years. That's a whopping 2% of those that
supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your
way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated
people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much
higher since they're the > most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they
went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"--
Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can
name and possessing amounts for personal consumption, and not sale. Nor
are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.
Now if this is beyond the reach of the law, there's no chance that any
of the sex change medications will ever be prohibited.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:22:16 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong. For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact,
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
competition.no, they are definitely wrong as Jesus is the only one to say "I am the way, the truth and the life". Mohammed died in his daughter's arms, Buddha died from food poisoning, Jesus died on the cross but rose again and ascended to Heaven. There's no
Do you have video of the ascension?
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks
you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That makes
around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course the
number with youth would be much higher since they're the > most
brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear,
the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.Now if this is beyond the reach of the law, there's no chance that any of the sex change
Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these
Anarchy.
Hell on earth.
In fact it's Gotham city.
Gotham City is what Jews have always had in store for us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman
Created by
Bob Kane
Bill Finger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kane
Robert Kahn was born in New York City, New York.His parents, Augusta and Herman Kahn, an engraver, were of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Finger
Bill Finger was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1914 to an Ashkenazi Jewish family.
On 9/27/23 1:11 AM, TT wrote:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and
getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion.
Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha. There are stories
about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
No. It was co-opted by a priesthood, much like with early Christianity.
The main difference is that in early Buddhism there were no miracles to convince people that Siddartha could deliver.
You had to try it out.
Not for me.
That is a very important point. Tibetan Buddhism for example is a world away from Zen Buddhism.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0hqim7FdNqo?t=33&feature=share
On 9/27/23 2:18 AM, *skriptis wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 2.11:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> >>
jdeluise kirjoitti 26.9.2023 klo 16.30:>>> More importantly, we as a
society already coddle and even encourage>>> moronic religious
beliefs in children. Beliefs which we know are>>> harmful both to
the child and to the rest of society.>>>> Well that's arguable. On
Islam I agree.> > How many people have been killed, enslaved or
impoverished in the name> of Jesus? And we allow our teachers to
coddle these beliefs, to let> them take root and corrupt our
children?Some, but not really with current Christianity.I guess there
was Spanish Inquisition, US witch-hunts etc.Crusades however have
been unfairly maligned in popular culture as they were mostly a
reaction to Islamic aggression.
So was inquisition a reaction to Jewish subversion.
It was an interesting phenomenon.
The start closely coincided with the final expulsion of the Arabs from
Spain, then on to the sephardic Jews.
They were sorta purging the kingdom of what they saw as foreign influences.
There's a sort of informal secular inquisition now, in the US. It's the
Meaning in current order it's even more maligned.
woke inquisition and it's similar to the anti-communist inquisition of
the 1950s. I think it has peaked.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 12:47:01 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 1:28:38 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:That is a very important point. Tibetan Buddhism for example is a world away from Zen Buddhism. Besides, I did not characterize Buddhism as a philosophy. Sawfish did that in response to my post, and he was specifically talking about *early* Buddhism.
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:That stuff is all about instilling discipline, apparently. But they do
meditating for ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they
slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion. Also, they do worship the
image/statue of Buddha.
try to stress that it's not about rituals. I had this book of zen koans
in comic book form. One of them was of a western tourist visiting a
monastery and noticing the zen master bowing in front of statues. He
says "Hey, I thought Zen wasn't about all this bowing and praying in
front of statues. I tell you what, I'm going to spit on your statues!".
The master replies "You spit, I bow" and carries on.
There are stories about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
Well, there are radically different forms of Buddhism. Other than the
violence and discipline aspects, I'd say Zen does resemble a philosophy
more than a religion.
Also, Buddhists don't worship the Buddha (Gautama) as a god/demigod and he never wanted to be seen that way. His statues are not idols. They revere him as a model for self-transformation.
you claim that to be the case but you do worship Buddha, you're always talking about him.
Sawfish kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.37:
On 9/27/23 1:11 AM, TT wrote:
jdeluise kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 10.04:
meditating for ten hours a day and
getting hit with sticks if they slumped or weren't sitting correctly.
Sounds a bit like... some weird religion.
Also, they do worship the image/statue of Buddha. There are stories
about Buddha making miracles.
So it's not just philosophy, which was the impression I got from
Gracs' post...
No. It was co-opted by a priesthood, much like with early
Christianity. The main difference is that in early Buddhism there
were no miracles to convince people that Siddartha could deliver.
You had to try it out.
Not for me.
Buddhist priests/monks are one more thing which hints to it being a
religion rather than just philosophy. As are temples. And the huge
golden Buddha. And prays for good luck etc in the temples.
Sawfish kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 19.36:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0hqim7FdNqo?t=33&feature=share
What big pharma doesn't want you to know.
Gracchus kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 14.46:
That is a very important point. Tibetan Buddhism for example is a world away from Zen Buddhism.
Which reminds me of Dalai Lama and buddhist belief in rebirth - more
magical thinking, just in different package.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:22:16 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong. For you, that will always be the "other." Not just Muslims in fact,
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
competition.no, they are definitely wrong as Jesus is the only one to say "I am the way, the truth and the life". Mohammed died in his daughter's arms, Buddha died from food poisoning, Jesus died on the cross but rose again and ascended to Heaven. There's no
Do you have video of the ascension?
On 9/27/23 8:29 AM, bmoore wrote:I'm not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers. > > > >>>> More importantly,
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/26/23 11:34 PM, *skriptis wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > >> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes: > >> What's your source? > >
Yes. This is the risk. One main alternative is to do nothing in responseUnderstood, but there is a leap of faith involved in inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves the belief that the future resembles the past. but why should it?This is very good stuff--a good topic.
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
To start, the most certain belief that I hold is that no one can have
absolute knowledge of anything. Only relative knowledge.
And yet people must have a belief system of sorts in order to even get
out of bed.
Working from this, and starting probably about 45-50 years ago, I began >> to build my personal belief on things that I, personally, have see occur >> repeatedly under the same, or near same, circumstances. You use
deductive logic to determine this, identifying and defining *specific*
instances of events, and the phenomena surrounding them.
But that is very narrow--far too narrow to function in daily life, so
you use inductive reasoning to apply to new events as they arrive. First >> step is to ask yourself if this new event fits a pattern that matches
one or more of the specific instances that you've explored with
deductive logic--which is sorta your database. If not, you must apply
deductive logic to this instance; if not, you need to see which of the
events in your database the event resembles, and then decide if it's
reasonable to make an analogy to it, in terms of how best to deal with it.
There is of course some risk in this part of the operation, but if you
really must take action, you to take the risk, or else remain in a
passive state.
Over time, the database part gets real big, and it makes it possible to >> apply the database to most incoming events to come up with a
reasonable--and quick--inductive solution. And if the analogy is wrong
and the solution is incorrect, don't be a complete numbnuts by insisting >> that it's the correct solution when you can see that it's not.
Anyway, that's pretty much my belief system. Very, very little comes
directly from books, or other external sources.
to an emerging situation, but this is almost wholly against my
instincts, to just sit there and let "X" happen to me. Very scary!
After applying the leap of faith over and over, the net result to me is better than 50-50. Quite a bit better in most instances.
And the interesting thing that I've informally noted is that when I
first started this, it was because it got me better than 50-50--maybe
55-45. But overtime the odds in my favor have increased. There are
multiple factors to explain this (more money available to me, which
always tilts the situation to your favor, to one degree or another--and you're a damned fool if you do not take advantage of this), but I do *believe* that incoming problems are easier to solve if/when they
resemble past problems that have undergone deductive examination.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 14.46:
That is a very important point. Tibetan Buddhism for example is a world away from Zen Buddhism.
Which reminds me of Dalai Lama and buddhist belief in rebirth - more
magical thinking, just in different package.
That is not the meaning of "magical thinking."
In this case it is just what you deem "supernatural" and reflexively sneer at. I neither believe in
reincarnation nor dismiss it out of hand.
At the end of this lifecycle, perhaps I'll find out, either slipping into the dark terminal void you are > so certain of or turning into a star baby.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 08:04:46 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me about
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
the sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty
brutal... manual labor when they weren't meditating... meditating for
ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they slumped or
weren't sitting correctly. Hardly just "reading books". What do
Christians do at church? Seems to me it's mostly just reading from
"holy books"...
how on earth could they be "part time" zen Buddhists? you really
should go to church and learn.
On 9/27/23 8:15 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personalconsumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.
Goddamn you must be the biggest Jew fan out there. You're outright obsessed!Rest of us don't care a bit who has Jewish background.
Oh, it looks like a better option than having an orthodoxy dictated to you, intact, but I haven't seen the need for either. Yet.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Oh, it looks like a better option than having an orthodoxy dictated to you, intact, but I haven't seen the need for either. Yet.
Sawfish do you admit, are you even aware of the fact that you boomers (for the most part in the west) were the ones who took great pride in rejecting "dictated orthodxy", I can sense both your personal and somewhat intragenerational pride in it, fromthis post but all our other exchanges.
You had success in life and I'm glad and you like to share the thoughts and I glad that too.
But the whole approach to life, questioning everything, sorting things on your own, as you say.
The logical extension of such mindset, the result, two or three generations later are youths who question their sex.
You understand that since you were first generation and still had deep roots to your parents and grandparents who followed religious or at least social Christian morality, that process couldn't have gone too far, but it's nevertheless a process.
With each passing generation and less roots, the process exacerbates...
When it comes to religious doctrine(s) of "revealed" religions, then I have a similar problem with it. That is, they demand a "leap of faith" at some point, even when there are sometimes other parts that sound reasonable *until* that point. Many peoplehave no problem with living their life by those dictates, behaving "AS IF" the underlying premises are valid.
That's why I don't adhere to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I wasn't raised within those faiths and never found a good reason to embrace them. I might have felt differently about Gnostic Christianity, with more emphasis on self-discovery ratherthan listening to any supposed religious authority. Especially since those "authorities" usually turn out to be preserving and building upon their personal power and/or that of their organization ahead of any deity or prophet.
Buddhism (in its various branches) is a different kettle of fish in that it has no central deity or so-called "personal god." It has doctrines without requiring blind faith. I have never explored it much, but wouldn't be quick to reject it either,since it places high value on self-knowledge.
What I find distasteful about Bill Maher types and his *brand* of atheism is that they aren't simply declining to accept a set of religious beliefs that require blind faith, or that they decline to accept the existence of any "higher power" withoutwhat they deem a reasonable standard of empirical (or possibly experiential) evidence. They hold their own unshakable faith that human senses, science, and tools of logic at this point in history are sufficient to determine all they NEED to know about
Gracchus kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 20.57:
In this case it is just what you deem "supernatural" and reflexively sneer at. I neither believe inI dismiss it out of hand. Hard to come up with explanation for one's consciousness, the firing of brain synapses, moving to other being.
reincarnation nor dismiss it out of hand.
That's going to be one smart cow.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:religion is the one true way. So they are mutually exclusive--BOTH cannot be the truth, so we have many millions of people in the world following one of these faiths who are dead wrong.
As for "leaps of faith," consider this: There are many millions of Christians in the world who have rock-solid faith that their religion is the one true way. You also have many millions of Muslims in the world with rock-solid faith that *their*
The fact something is mutually exclusive doesn't mean both are wrong, one is always true as evidences are overwhelming.
Christ had risen from the dead.
What more do you want?
Fedfans are no different than Moslems really.
Millions can be wrong.
Sawfish kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 17.59:
On 9/27/23 3:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change operation.
1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 there has been
about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross overestimation of
the total operations in 30 years. That's a whopping 2% of those that
supposedly identify as trannies.Me thinks you're again having your
way with imaginary numbers.> That makes around 1 million mutilated
people in USA alone.> > Of course the number with youth would be much
higher since they're the > most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they
went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"--
Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.
Bad law.
Naturally that kind of law will skyrocket amount of junkies. "Hey, I can
try once as it's not against the law or anything...".
Removes one big hurdle to start using.
On 9/26/23 11:34 PM, *skriptis wrote:m not claiming I did any extensive research to track the story. I was just making the point that you hadn't either, and made your comments based on an assumption it was a fake or at least heavily distorted by right-wingers. > > > >>>> More importantly,
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 02:04:54 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> On 9/26/23 4:50 PM, Gracchus wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > >> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes: > >> What's your source? > > I'
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
This is very good stuff--a good topic.
To start, the most certain belief that I hold is that no one can have absolute knowledge of anything. Only relative knowledge.
And yet people must have a belief system of sorts in order to even get
out of bed.
Working from this, and starting probably about 45-50 years ago, I began
to build my personal belief on things that I, personally, have see occur repeatedly under the same, or near same, circumstances. You use
deductive logic to determine this, identifying and defining *specific* instances of events, and the phenomena surrounding them.
But that is very narrow--far too narrow to function in daily life, so
you use inductive reasoning to apply to new events as they arrive. First step is to ask yourself if this new event fits a pattern that matches
one or more of the specific instances that you've explored with
deductive logic--which is sorta your database. If not, you must apply deductive logic to this instance; if not, you need to see which of the events in your database the event resembles, and then decide if it's reasonable to make an analogy to it, in terms of how best to deal with it.
There is of course some risk in this part of the operation, but if you really must take action, you to take the risk, or else remain in a
passive state.
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 08:04:46 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
I dunno, my parents were part-time zen buddhists. They told me about
Yeah they want to read books to know the truths, hahaha.
Without leap of faith, it's all pointless.
the sessins they participated in and it sounded pretty
brutal... manual labor when they weren't meditating... meditating for
ten hours a day and getting hit with sticks if they slumped or
weren't sitting correctly. Hardly just "reading books". What do
Christians do at church? Seems to me it's mostly just reading from
"holy books"...
how on earth could they be "part time" zen Buddhists? you really
should go to church and learn.
Go see a man in robes read from books? I can just go to drag queen
story hour if I want that.
OK, but they were Jews, right?
On 9/27/23 2:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/27/23 8:15 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal
As Iceberg points out, they had no benefits. Not of this world at least.
OK, but they were Jews, right?
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
OK, but they were Jews, right?Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.or change.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to destroy
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianitymurder of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocaust
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible for the
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.
Now another parallel.
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked. That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
There are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
They need not happen.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > OK, but they were Jews, right?> Very debatable. > > Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew. > >E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic. > > > Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda. > > This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins? > > Some would
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
OK, but they were Jews, right?Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
destroy or change.It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
the murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocausthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible for
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.
Now another parallel.
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked. That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
There are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
They need not happen.how is that Wiki page allowed?! it so dismissive and offensive, no mention of Jews being money lenders either, which caused them lot of trouble amongst regular folk over history :(
hey Sawfish you once wrote something interesting about how Jews were protecting themselves, said it different manner than black folks, but it seem lot of Jews really don't like Europeans, conspiracy theorist guy sent these quotes just last week, whatyou think? is this same as Malcolm X?
I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to bethe monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.
Barbara Lerner Spectreperpetual peace. And the Jews will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain. But how can you get peace if Germany exists? The only way to win an eternal peace is to make the punishment of waging war more horrible
Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity
Noel Ignatieff
I believe that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the world get together in one vast federation. "Union Now" is the beginning of this. Slowly but surely the world will develop into a paradise. We will have
Theodore Kaufman
:O
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:> On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote: > > Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > > OK, but they were Jews, right? > > Very debatable. > >to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins? > > > > Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone? > > > > But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew. > > > > E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic. > > > > > > Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda. > > > > This doesn't need
Jesus in a way to compare their social impact. > > > > Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways ofIt's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels. > > > > Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to
life. > > > > > > There are no trannies in China, Russia, India... > > > > Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc. > > > > They need not happen.> how is that Wiki page allowed?! it so dismissive andAs for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed. > > > > It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me
thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the >
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:As is just about everything.
OK, but they were Jews, right?
Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.All this meant was that he was not of the upper classes. Aramaic was
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.OK. But this can be said of almost every group, given 2000 years of evolutionary procreation.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.I think this must have happened somewhat, just as with the
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).Oh, I think that they were always a very troublesome lot, even to each
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.I think that it is a valid superficial parallel.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to destroyor change.
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.I'll have to think about this and read about it some.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianitymurder of Jesus of Nazareth.
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible for the
Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the HolocaustCertainly this is only one side of the story.
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.That's not a path I can follow, intellectually.
Now another parallel.He was a direct and focused threat to their status quo during his
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked.
That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.Agreed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
There are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
They need not happen.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:or change.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
OK, but they were Jews, right?Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to destroy
the murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocaust
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible for
you think? is this same as Malcolm X?how is that Wiki page allowed?! it so dismissive and offensive, no mention of Jews being money lenders either, which caused them lot of trouble amongst regular folk over history :(
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.
Now another parallel.
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked. That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
There are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
They need not happen.
hey Sawfish you once wrote something interesting about how Jews were protecting themselves, said it different manner than black folks, but it seem lot of Jews really don't like Europeans, conspiracy theorist guy sent these quotes just last week, what
I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to bethe monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.
Barbara Lerner SpectreYou'll notice how no one wants to talk about a mutli-cultural China.
Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanityperpetual peace. And the Jews will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain. But how can you get peace if Germany exists? The only way to win an eternal peace is to make the punishment of waging war more horrible
Noel Ignatieff
I believe that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the world get together in one vast federation. "Union Now" is the beginning of this. Slowly but surely the world will develop into a paradise. We will have
Theodore KaufmanThis is the most self-serving crock of shit I've ever seen.
:O
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.
We have wars over money and recourses really. Very very few if any wars are over theological matters, no?
As for proving, we'll have to do it like we did in tennis? Wait for slam race to end to see who comes at the top?
Wait for the end of times and see who comes at the top.
My bet is on Jesus.
;)
On 9/28/23 12:51 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.
We have wars over money and recourses really. Very very few if any wars are over theological matters, no?
As for proving, we'll have to do it like we did in tennis? Wait for slam race to end to see who comes at the top?
Wait for the end of times and see who comes at the top.
My bet is on Jesus.
;)
I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic
avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood
it. I cannot even get to first base with it.
On 9/28/23 12:16 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> OK, but they were Jews, right?>> Very debatable.As is just about everything.>> Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.>> E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.All this meant was that he was not of the upper classes. Aramaic was what the common Jews spoke, Hebrew was sorta the Mandarin of Jews.>>> Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct?
I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood it. I cannot even get to first base with it.
Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.
We have wars over money and recourses really. Very very few if any wars are over theological matters, no?
As for proving, we'll have to do it like we did in tennis? Wait for slam race to end to see who comes at the top?
Wait for the end of times and see who comes at the top.
My bet is on Jesus.
;)
--
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood it. I cannot even get to first base with it.
Maybe for the same reason we need this metal thing?
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/215e8a59ead887011f40053413c1bbae0af7d1cd/47_157_2897_1739/master/2897.jpg?width=1020&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=e20e962f589cc4f2d0360c937c68a993
Maybe we could do it without the metal thing...? Wouldn't all be the same?
This question of yours is what reinforces my belief in His divinity. We apparently don't need him, but we have him, he's there. Always has been.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/28/23 12:51 AM, *skriptis wrote:In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.
Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.We have wars over money and recourses really. Very very few if any wars are over theological matters, no?
As for proving, we'll have to do it like we did in tennis? Wait for slam race to end to see who comes at the top?
Wait for the end of times and see who comes at the top.
My bet is on Jesus.
;)
avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood
it. I cannot even get to first base with it.
On 9/28/23 11:34 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Interesting perspective, b.
On 9/28/23 12:51 AM, *skriptis wrote:In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.
Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.We have wars over money and recourses really. Very very few if any wars are over theological matters, no?
As for proving, we'll have to do it like we did in tennis? Wait for slam race to end to see who comes at the top?
Wait for the end of times and see who comes at the top.
My bet is on Jesus.
;)
avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood
it. I cannot even get to first base with it.
From that POV, my inability to understand this (and I'm not
exaggerating on this--I cannot even imagine what you are referring to)
is a lot like a color-blind person. So it is beyond my ability to "see" certain attributes that do, in fact, exist.
Of course, from my POV it suggests to me that you folks may be on very powerful hallucinogens.
;^)
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:54:20 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/28/23 11:34 AM, bmoore wrote:Understood. One thing to consider is that we're not all on the same "drug". It's all largely based on personal experience, and personal delusion in some cases.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Interesting perspective, b.
On 9/28/23 12:51 AM, *skriptis wrote:In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.
Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic
How can you prove that though ? Fed vs. Djok can be proven through stats. You cannot prove or disprove abstract concepts.If it were so simple, we wouldn't have had all these wars and debates over the centuries.We have wars over money and recourses really. Very very few if any wars are over theological matters, no?
As for proving, we'll have to do it like we did in tennis? Wait for slam race to end to see who comes at the top?
Wait for the end of times and see who comes at the top.
My bet is on Jesus.
;)
avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood >>>> it. I cannot even get to first base with it.
From that POV, my inability to understand this (and I'm not
exaggerating on this--I cannot even imagine what you are referring to)
is a lot like a color-blind person. So it is beyond my ability to "see"
certain attributes that do, in fact, exist.
Of course, from my POV it suggests to me that you folks may be on very
powerful hallucinogens.
;^)
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me
thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the >
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their >>>>> bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
OK, but they were Jews, right?Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
destroy or change.It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
the murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocausthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible for
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.
Now another parallel.
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked. That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
Often Jews were barred from all occupations but money-lending and peddling, with even these at times forbidden. Jews' association to money lending would carry on throughout history in the stereotype of Jews being greedy and perpetuating capitalism."There are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
Wrong, as usual. From that Wiki page:They need not happen.how is that Wiki page allowed?! it so dismissive and offensive, no mention of Jews being money lenders either, which caused them lot of trouble amongst regular folk over history :(
"Jews were subjected to a wide range of legal disabilities and restrictions in Medieval Europe. Jews were excluded from many trades, the occupations varying with place and time, and determined by the influence of various non-Jewish competing interests.
Twist away!
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
I'll be honest here, skriptis: why is it necessary to have a symbolic avatar such as Jesus? Not a put-down, but I've never really understood it. I cannot even get to first base with it.Maybe for the same reason we need this metal thing?
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/215e8a59ead887011f40053413c1bbae0af7d1cd/47_157_2897_1739/master/2897.jpg?width=1020&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=e20e962f589cc4f2d0360c937c68a993
Maybe we could do it without the metal thing...? Wouldn't all be the same?
This question of yours is what reinforces my belief in His divinity. We apparently don't need him, but we have him, he's there. Always has been.
On 9/28/23 12:33 AM, The Iceberg wrote:consumption, and not sale. Nor are you prohibited by any law from publicly consuming these drugs. As a statistical consequence, drug OD deaths are at record levels, so it's difficult to make the argument that the consumption of these drugs is harmless.
On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 23:54:00 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/27/23 2:12 PM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/27/23 8:15 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> Here's a social indicator to make one ponder...Here in Oregon, there is no criminal law against using any drug you can name and possessing amounts for personal
This is not a mean-spirited question, but...they were Christians technically, as they followed Christ.OK, but they were Jews, right?
As Iceberg points out, they had no benefits. Not of this world at least. >>>
I think that "Jews" are a quasi ethnic, quasi-religious group that has rigorously self-selected to keep the ethnic part alive. Do you see it
this way?
So one is born a Jew in a way that sets them apart from, say, Catholics.
In this sense, one is not born a Catholic.
So in that sense they were still Jews, and very likely
circumcised--which is quite a commitment, if you ask me.
In a way "rogue Jews", or "schismatic Jews" is how I see them.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me
thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their >>>>>>> bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna Marin.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a
whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me
thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their >>>>>>> bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna Marin.
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their >>>>>>>> bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna
Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is €10.1B.
The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year.
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the PerSu
lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin government.
If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have been a ...
DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything yet!
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of >>>>>>>>>> course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to
there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked >>>>>>>>> their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it. >>>> No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna
Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year.
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the
PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have
been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government.
Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:32:55 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
OK, but they were Jews, right?Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
destroy or change.It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
for the murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocausthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.
Now another parallel.
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked. That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
interests. Often Jews were barred from all occupations but money-lending and peddling, with even these at times forbidden. Jews' association to money lending would carry on throughout history in the stereotype of Jews being greedy and perpetuatingThere are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
Wrong, as usual. From that Wiki page:They need not happen.how is that Wiki page allowed?! it so dismissive and offensive, no mention of Jews being money lenders either, which caused them lot of trouble amongst regular folk over history :(
"Jews were subjected to a wide range of legal disabilities and restrictions in Medieval Europe. Jews were excluded from many trades, the occupations varying with place and time, and determined by the influence of various non-Jewish competing
Twist away!it doesn't mention that they were largely resented for their money lending and that their religion allowed that whereas it was frowned upon in Europe, it's just dismisses that as a "stereotype", you dimvit.
On 28.9.2023 23.51, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>>> On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> >>>>>>>>>>> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of >>>>>>>>>>> course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to >>>>>>>>>>> there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked >>>>>>>>>> their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than >>>>> the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix
it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna
Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year.
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the
PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have
been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything
yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government.
Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
What's wrong with you? This year's deficit is Marin's, next year's is
not. Oh, wait! Failures in the PerSu family are always someone else's. Another MO copied from Twump.
These kinds of replys are why I call you Tiny. You can count that street gangs being the "norm" in Helsinki in too.
Whatta wanker.
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
him... do you?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.
him... do you?
Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and
pray.
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I
recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.
him... do you?
Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and
pray.
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I
recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.But still, Jesus is symbolic. We know next to nothing about the man
himself. The first gospels were written nearly a half century after he
died. There are quotes that are attributed to him, but we don't really
know if he said them or not. I'm not questioning your faith here, but
you said Jesus is more than symbolic. How is that?
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and pray.
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
him... do you?
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God butI see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and that's great.
On 9/29/23 8:42 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and pray.
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
him... do you?
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.FWIW, I don't know that there is *NOT* one, only that I haven't seen it.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God butI see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and that's great.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 8:42 AM, bmoore wrote:
I believe there is a spiritual path.
FWIW, I don't know that there is *NOT* one, only that I haven't seen it.
You have, though. You maintain a life. Everyone does.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 8:42 AM, bmoore wrote:
I believe there is a spiritual path.
FWIW, I don't know that there is *NOT* one, only that I haven't seen it.
You have, though. You maintain a life. Everyone does.That's one take on it. The key distinction may be whether it is a consciously intentional spiritual path.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:But still, Jesus is symbolic. We know next to nothing about the man
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
him... do you?
pray.
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I
recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.
himself. The first gospels were written nearly a half century after he
died. There are quotes that are attributed to him, but we don't really
know if he said them or not. I'm not questioning your faith here, but
you said Jesus is more than symbolic. How is that?
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and that's great.
I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and
I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents
were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some
effort to explain my beliefs to you.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:50:49 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:It should be natural, conscious and naturally intentional.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:That's one take on it. The key distinction may be whether it is a consciously intentional spiritual path.
On 9/29/23 8:42 AM, bmoore wrote:
I believe there is a spiritual path.FWIW, I don't know that there is *NOT* one, only that I haven't seen it. >>> You have, though. You maintain a life. Everyone does.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
but since you seem to be pushing it, I will do my best.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and
I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents
were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I don't need any assistance in
finding spirituality. I do care about your misstatement that Jesus is
more than a symbolic avatar. All you've shown is that Jesus is a very important symbolic avatar to you, maybe even foundational to your
beliefs. But still, a symbolic avatar all the same. Who cares what you "know" if you can't prove it?
bmoore <bmoore@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping ahead,though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I don't
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question. Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question. Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.Well, you're no Socrates.
On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into >>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and >>> that's great.
you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me
the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but
are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong. Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it twice, the same way.
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I
engaged you. Should I stop?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into >>>>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and >>>>> that's great.
you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese
culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a
personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are
intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me
the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an
attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an
obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but
are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on
being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after
nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.
On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:That was because he was a smart-alec.
On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of >>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into >>>>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and >>>>> that's great.
you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese >> culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a
personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are
intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me
the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an
attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face, >> or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an >> obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but >> are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on >> being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after >> nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong. >> Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it >> twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:That was because he was a smart-alec.
On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but >>>> you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese >>>> culture a lot.
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of >>>>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into >>>>>>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and >>>>>>> that's great.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in >>>> my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a >>>> personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are
intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me >>>> the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an >>>> attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face, >>>> or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an >>>> obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but >>>> are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on >>>> being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after >>>> nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong. >>>> Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it >>>> twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
On 9/29/23 8:42 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
him... do you?
pray.
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I
recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.
FWIW, I don't know that there is *NOT* one, only that I haven't seen it.
Who knows?
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.58:
On 28.9.2023 23.51, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös
wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a >>>>>>>>>>>> gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> >>>>>>>>>>>> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of >>>>>>>>>>>> course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to >>>>>>>>>>>> there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked >>>>>>>>>>> their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a >>>>>>>>>> twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than >>>>>> the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to
fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents. >>>>>
Sanna Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year.
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the
PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have
been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything
yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government.
Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
What's wrong with you? This year's deficit is Marin's, next year's is
not. Oh, wait! Failures in the PerSu family are always someone else's.
Another MO copied from Twump.
Are you dishonest or just ignorant? Probably both.
Public spending has swollen during Marin's time to unsustainable levels.
On 29.9.2023 0.44, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.58:
On 28.9.2023 23.51, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös
wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a >>>>>>>>>>>>> gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary
numbers.> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of >>>>>>>>>>>>> course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to >>>>>>>>>>>>> there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently
wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a >>>>>>>>>>> twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse >>>>>>> than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to
fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents. >>>>>>
Sanna Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year. >>>>>
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the
PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have
been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done
anything yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government.
Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
What's wrong with you? This year's deficit is Marin's, next year's is
not. Oh, wait! Failures in the PerSu family are always someone
else's. Another MO copied from Twump.
Are you dishonest or just ignorant? Probably both.
Public spending has swollen during Marin's time to unsustainable levels.
Well, first. A big part of *public* spending is out of government
control. Just in case.
Second: corona & Putin. Nobody ever thought that the corona spending
would need to be "sustainable". Or maybe they did in the PerSu boards.
The difference between public spending and public revenue was about €2B/year when Marin started and it was about €2B/year when Marin finished. In line with what the previous government did. What happened in-between was corona and Putin. Corona was a one-off €20B hit. That's
the way it goes.
The deficit of the first budget of the cut lady increased €1.5B in one week. Likely because it was based on overly optimistic forecasts of the economy. The cut lady is a failure already. She spends what she saves.
Her total debt for the next four years is projected to be bigger than
the total debt of Marin's four years. Whatever happens, she is
responsible for her budgets. That's the way it goes.
On 30/09/2023 2:18 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 8:42 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Not in a kooky, "hearing voices" way. I read the Bible and think and
In Christianity, Jesus is much more than a symbolic avatar, Saw.What is he if not symbolic? Don't tell me you hear him and talk to
him... do you?
pray.
i will give you the respect of what I hope is a sincere question.
We are miles apart on this, so I will start from square one. I
recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005
I believe there is a spiritual path.
FWIW, I don't know that there is *NOT* one, only that I haven't seen it.
Who knows?
When my aunt was dying of cancer 20 years ago she told me she didn't
think there was a god/heaven, and asked me what I thought. I agreed,
but regret not being more circumspect in hindsight. The fact she was
even asking me that question suggests she was looking for some kind of comfort or hope in her darkest hour. She was a great woman, never
said a bad word about anyone - lot of people say this but in her case
it was actually true. She never drank or smoked but cancer ravaged
her, she refused chemo and just took it on the chin, dead at 65 - in
this case the good die young : (
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change
operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their >>>>>>> bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it. >> No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna Marin.They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is €10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year.
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin government.
If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything yet!
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:32:55 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 08:16:26 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
OK, but they were Jews, right?Very debatable.
Those people even among themselves spoke different languages, not just Hebrew.
E.g. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Regarding those you ask, in a way we can consider them extinct. Just as Latins are extinct? Kinda.
This doesn't need to be a religious debate. For example where are the ancient Greeks vs ancient Latins?
Some would say Greeks are still here, but Latins are gone?
But modern Greek differs from ancient Greek, maybe as much as Italians differs from Latin. So both are gone. Or not?
The Jews we know today really came into existence long after Jesus and they structured their religion around opposing Christianity.
Post Jesus, they either became Christians or they doubled down on their wickedness, rejection of Jesus kindnesses and love messages and justice etc, and became Jews that we know today (or from 5th century).
E.g. Talmud was written and codified several centuries after Jesus.
So Judaism = anti Christianity
destroy or change.It's not a moral comparison but just to draw parallels.
Communism was invented to turn the things around, to shatter the existing order and to bring "new hope". Blabla. I may be free to compare it to Christianity and Marx to Jesus in a way to compare their social impact.
Then facism happened as a reaction to communism, therefore it was called "reactionary" movement. It was opposed to communism vehemently but that fact alone does not make it equal to the old ways of conservatism that communism was attempting to
Judaism (as we know it) is primary a reaction to Christianity in a way facism reacted to communism. It's a new thing.
That's why there have been centuries of animus between us and them. They want to harm us. Look at what the bastards are saying?
(Wikipedia is run by them).
Of course they're lying about the reasons for our conflict, but look at their accusations.
for the murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocausthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy toward Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity and are *derived from pagan* anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews were responsible
So pagan attitudes (meaning European peoples by their origins, Slavs, Germanics, Latins, Greeks) are behind anti-Jewish attitudes?
Think about that.
It's a racial accusation towards all Europeans that we ultimately did their "holocaust".
Fuck them.
I like to take their most famous story.
Anne Frank and her sister and mother died from typhus in filth and disease just as many people died in that horrible period.
Her dad "survived" to publish her diary.
So in their most famous story snd symbol of holocaust, none was actually executed.
They're full of shit.
Jesus is the absolute truth, and when someone builds their identity around rejecting it, they can't be nice. Moslems e.g. don't bash Jesus, other religions are neutral at least and so on.
Now another parallel.
It's similar to Federer. His fans claim he's the incarnation of tennis itself, that he's ideal tennis player, and that you must love him and his game.
We may disagree and have quarrels over his behaviour or his stats, or even his approach but you can not find a person who would say he had "an ugly game".
That would be lunatic.
We all at least recognise his fluidity and artistry.
Jews (are the only ones) who claim Jesus (the absolute good) sucked. That says all about them. So they're the ones who claim Federer's game was ugly.
As for generalisation, nothing is ever monolithic, but you yourself notice the difference when America was run by old Christian men and now when it's been thoroughly jewed.
It's two different worlds because it's two different approaches to life.
interests. Often Jews were barred from all occupations but money-lending and peddling, with even these at times forbidden. Jews' association to money lending would carry on throughout history in the stereotype of Jews being greedy and perpetuatingThere are no trannies in China, Russia, India...
Trannies do not come as a logical consequence of modernity, computers, AI, smartphones etc.
Wrong, as usual. From that Wiki page:They need not happen.how is that Wiki page allowed?! it so dismissive and offensive, no mention of Jews being money lenders either, which caused them lot of trouble amongst regular folk over history :(
"Jews were subjected to a wide range of legal disabilities and restrictions in Medieval Europe. Jews were excluded from many trades, the occupations varying with place and time, and determined by the influence of various non-Jewish competing
The original contention was "no mention of Jews being money lenders". But there is mention of that.Twist away!it doesn't mention that they were largely resented for their money lending and that their religion allowed that whereas it was frowned upon in Europe, it's just dismisses that as a "stereotype", you dimvit.
Done.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 21:41:01 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year.
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a gross >>>>>>>>>> overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> That >>>>>>>>>> makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of course >>>>>>>>>> the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The >>>>>>>>>> bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked their >>>>>>>>> bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a twistis >>>>>>>> thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention...
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to fix it. >>>> No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook Sanna Marin. >> They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is €10.1B.
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the PerSu
lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin government.
If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have been a ... DISASTER. >>
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything yet!
oh no they're not, they've only been in power a month or so, they just inherited the absolute and total disaster that silly party girl caused, anything wrong is all her fault.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and that's great.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.
On 30.9.2023 13.43, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 29.9.2023 0.44, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.58:
On 28.9.2023 23.51, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös >>>>>>> wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >
most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a >>>>>>>>>>>> twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention... >>>>>>>>>
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse >>>>>>>> than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to >>>>>>>> fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these
incompetents.
they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook
Sanna Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year. >>>>>>
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the >>>>>> PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would
have been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done
anything yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government.
Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
What's wrong with you? This year's deficit is Marin's, next year's
is not. Oh, wait! Failures in the PerSu family are always someone
else's. Another MO copied from Twump.
Are you dishonest or just ignorant? Probably both.
Public spending has swollen during Marin's time to unsustainable levels.
Well, first. A big part of *public* spending is out of government
control. Just in case.
Second: corona & Putin. Nobody ever thought that the corona spending
would need to be "sustainable". Or maybe they did in the PerSu boards.
The difference between public spending and public revenue was about
€2B/year when Marin started and it was about €2B/year when Marin
finished. In line with what the previous government did. What happened
in-between was corona and Putin. Corona was a one-off €20B hit. That's
the way it goes.
I forgot to fix this. The *public* deficit was €2B in 2019, then shot up because of corona, was back to €2B in 2021, then shot up (much less
though) in 2022 because of Putin. The cut lady's own department
predicted the *public* deficit/GDP/year would be back within the
EU-required 3% in 2026. Because income is catching up to revenue.
is in fact quite reasonable. Much of the ballyhoo and misrepresenting of
the debt situation is for political brownie points and vote begging. The average PerSu Joe looks at the one-off €20B, thinks it must be
sustained, and panics. Duhski.
That said, the increase has to be taken seriously. But, ... [Hemingway's Iceberg theory kicks in]
The deficit of the first budget of the cut lady increased €1.5B in one
week. Likely because it was based on overly optimistic forecasts of
the economy. The cut lady is a failure already. She spends what she
saves. Her total debt for the next four years is projected to be
bigger than the total debt of Marin's four years. Whatever happens,
she is responsible for her budgets. That's the way it goes.
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:46:02 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of us, but on reflection, are true.
I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and that's great.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.for jdeluise: bmoore is being quite a PC Christian, he seems to half believe what the Bible says and half understands it but wrongly/sadly puts "tolerance" of others way above everything, he wants to be liked by non-Christians,
whereas I will tell you that I hear Jesus and talk to him, it a real relationship, as well as praying and all the other stuff, you can do the same if you want, as said before you' prob be lot happier if you did as your Zen basics are totally wrong andmessed up.
On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:That was because he was a smart-alec.
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but >>>> you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese >>>> culture a lot.
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of >>>>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in >>>> my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a >>>> personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are >>>> intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me >>>> the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an >>>> attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an >>>> obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but >>>> are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on >>>> being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after >>>> nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of
course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions
for it.
How do you see it?
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and
I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents
were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I don't need any assistance in
finding spirituality. I do care about your misstatement that Jesus is
more than a symbolic avatar. All you've shown is that Jesus is a very important symbolic avatar to you, maybe even foundational to your
beliefs. But still, a symbolic avatar all the same. Who cares what you
"know" if you can't prove it?
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rthough. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I don't
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping ahead,
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in hisdivinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's good,so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will allcollapse without Jesus.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:That was because he was a smart-alec.
On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but >> you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese >> culture a lot.
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of >>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in >> my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a >> personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are
intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me >> the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an >> attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an >> obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but >> are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on >> being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after >> nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?
On 29.9.2023 0.44, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.58:
On 28.9.2023 23.51, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös >>>>> wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since 2003 >>>>>>>>>>>> there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a >>>>>>>>>>>> gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary numbers.> >>>>>>>>>>>> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of >>>>>>>>>>>> course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to >>>>>>>>>>>> there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently wrecked >>>>>>>>>>> their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a >>>>>>>>>> twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention... >>>>>>>
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse than >>>>>> the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to >>>>>> fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents. >>>>>
Sanna Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year. >>>>
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the
PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have >>>> been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done anything >>>> yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government.
Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
What's wrong with you? This year's deficit is Marin's, next year's is
not. Oh, wait! Failures in the PerSu family are always someone else's.
Another MO copied from Twump.
Are you dishonest or just ignorant? Probably both.
Public spending has swollen during Marin's time to unsustainable levels.
Well, first. A big part of *public* spending is out of government
control. Just in case.
Second: corona & Putin. Nobody ever thought that the corona spending
would need to be "sustainable". Or maybe they did in the PerSu boards.
The difference between public spending and public revenue was about €2B/year when Marin started and it was about €2B/year when Marin finished. In line with what the previous government did. What happened in-between was corona and Putin. Corona was a one-off €20B hit. That's
the way it goes.
The deficit of the first budget of the cut lady increased €1.5B in one week. Likely because it was based on overly optimistic forecasts of the economy. The cut lady is a failure already. She spends what she saves.
Her total debt for the next four years is projected to be bigger than
the total debt of Marin's four years. Whatever happens, she is
responsible for her budgets. That's the way it goes.
On 30.9.2023 13.43, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 29.9.2023 0.44, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.58:
On 28.9.2023 23.51, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 28.9.2023 klo 23.40:
On 28.9.2023 22.40, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 17:50:50 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös >>>>>> wrote:
On 27.9.2023 19.50, TT wrote:they can't ever be worse than that disastrous party girl crook
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 18.05:
On 27.9.2023 14.15, TT wrote:
Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti 27.9.2023 klo 13.16:
On 27.9.2023 13.13, *skriptis wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say that every fifth of that 1,6% goes to sex change >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation. 1.65% of the Finnish population is 88000. Since >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2003
there has been about 10-60 operations/year. 60x300=1800, a >>>>>>>>>>>>> gross
overestimation of the total operations in 30 years. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> whopping 2% of those that supposedly identify as trannies.Me >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks you're again having your way with imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers.> That
makes around 1 million mutilated people in USA alone.> > Of >>>>>>>>>>>>> course
the number with youth would be much higher since they're the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> most brainwashed gen.-- "And off they went, from here to >>>>>>>>>>>>> there,The
bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional >>>>>>>>>>>>
But operations is just a final mutilation.
How many of those have taken hormones and permanently >>>>>>>>>>>> wrecked their
bodies?
You should count those as well
When I reply to what Tiny says, I'm not replying to what a >>>>>>>>>>> twistis
thinks.
Why do you call me "Tiny"...
You are tiny.
Meaning what?
Tiny means tiny.
But naturally as a woke homosexual
Isn't that, like, kindergarten bullying?
Yes. Isn't that the truth though.
Look, I've known this for long time, but paid no attention... >>>>>>>>
How's it going with the budget deficits?
Badly.
Indeed. Despite the election noise, the PerSu lady will do worse >>>>>>> than
the previous government with the debt. Despite being elected to >>>>>>> fix it.
No covid excuses either. I told you not to trust these incompetents. >>>>>>
Sanna Marin.
They already are. The deficit for this year, a Marin budget, is
€10.1B. The PerSu lady budgets a deficit of €11.5B for next year. >>>>>
The projected total deficit for the whole of the four years of the >>>>> PerSu lady is bigger than that of the total deficit of the Marin
government. If the PerSu lady had to deal with covid, it would have >>>>> been a ... DISASTER.
Not a good start considering ... the PerSu lady hasn't done
anything yet!
Lie some more. It's all deficit Marin left for the next government. >>>> Then she left to whore for the Saudis.
What's wrong with you? This year's deficit is Marin's, next year's is >>> not. Oh, wait! Failures in the PerSu family are always someone
else's. Another MO copied from Twump.
Are you dishonest or just ignorant? Probably both.
Public spending has swollen during Marin's time to unsustainable levels.
Well, first. A big part of *public* spending is out of government
control. Just in case.
Second: corona & Putin. Nobody ever thought that the corona spending
would need to be "sustainable". Or maybe they did in the PerSu boards.
The difference between public spending and public revenue was about €2B/year when Marin started and it was about €2B/year when Marin finished. In line with what the previous government did. What happened in-between was corona and Putin. Corona was a one-off €20B hit. That's the way it goes.I forgot to fix this. The *public* deficit was €2B in 2019, then shot up because of corona, was back to €2B in 2021, then shot up (much less though) in 2022 because of Putin. The cut lady's own department
predicted the *public* deficit/GDP/year would be back within the
EU-required 3% in 2026. Because income is catching up to revenue. This
is in fact quite reasonable. Much of the ballyhoo and misrepresenting of
the debt situation is for political brownie points and vote begging. The average PerSu Joe looks at the one-off €20B, thinks it must be
sustained, and panics. Duhski.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:In this case, I don't think that I can give a meaningful answer in a few paragraphs. To understand where I'm coming from requires a lot of context.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:That was because he was a smart-alec.
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but >>>>>> you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese >>>>>> culture a lot.
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of >>>>>>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>>>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and >>>>>>>>> that's great.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in >>>>>> my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a >>>>>> personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are >>>>>> intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me >>>>>> the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an >>>>>> attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face, >>>>>> or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an >>>>>> obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but >>>>>> are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on >>>>>> being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move >>>>>> on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after >>>>>> nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong. >>>>>> Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it >>>>>> twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under
interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of
course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions
for it.
How do you see it?
Do you believe in the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:46:02 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of us, but on reflection, are true.
I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you intoI see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
Wrong.And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.for jdeluise: bmoore is being quite a PC Christian, he seems to half believe what the Bible says and half understands it but wrongly/sadly puts "tolerance" of others way above everything, he wants to be liked by non-Christians,
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:46:02 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:that I hear Jesus and talk to him, it a real relationship, as well as praying and all the other stuff, you can do the same if you want, as said before you' prob be lot happier if you did as your Zen basics are totally wrong and messed up.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:for jdeluise: bmoore is being quite a PC Christian, he seems to half believe what the Bible says and half understands it but wrongly/sadly puts "tolerance" of others way above everything, he wants to be liked by non-Christians, whereas I will tell you
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into >>>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:33:28 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:messed up.
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 17:46:02 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:Wrong.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:for jdeluise: bmoore is being quite a PC Christian, he seems to half believe what the Bible says and half understands it but wrongly/sadly puts "tolerance" of others way above everything, he wants to be liked by non-Christians,
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but >>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into >>>>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and >>>>> that's great.
There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.
You're jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.
And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some effort to explain my beliefs to you.
whereas I will tell you that I hear Jesus and talk to him, it a real relationship, as well as praying and all the other stuff, you can do the same if you want, as said before you' prob be lot happier if you did as your Zen basics are totally wrong and
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I engaged you. Should I stop?It's not too difficult. If Jesus is more than a symbolic avatar as you
so confidently asserted, you should have something concrete to back it
up.
On 9/30/23 7:45 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:In this case, I don't think that I can give a meaningful answer in a few paragraphs. To understand where I'm coming from requires a lot of context.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:That was because he was a smart-alec.
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese
culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a
personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are >>>>>> intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me
the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an
attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an
obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but
are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on
being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move >>>>>> on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after
nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy. >>>> I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under
interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of
course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions >> for it.
How do you see it?
Do you believe in the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious?How does it differ from evolved instinctual response, implying a
*parallel* circumstantial response to any given emerging situation
rather than a shared unconscious--which implies some sort of a
connection? E.g., a man in a room in Jakarta opens a book at exactly the same time as a man in a room in Bogota. The frontispiece is a large
color image of a coiled pit viper. They both flinch at precisely the
same time.
Are these connected in any direct way? To me, it is similar to noting
that these same two men also breathe while in the rooms.
Not to be a smart guy, but I don't know enough about Jungian ideas.
Now, if I were exchanging with another person with less integrity, I'd
look at the addition of Jungian ideas here at this point in the
discussion, whose topic is how to judge the intent of an unanswered question, as an attempt to change the subject. But I do not feel that
this is the case here.
So I'd like to return to the original discussion after this little detour.
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Spirituality is personal, not something one "proves" in a mathematical or scientific sense.
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.It's not too difficult. If Jesus is more than a symbolic avatar as you
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I
engaged you. Should I stop?
so confidently asserted, you should have something concrete to back it
up.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:30:37 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 7:45 AM, bmoore wrote:The point is that it's not so much parallel as all rooted in the same thing.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:How does it differ from evolved instinctual response, implying a
On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:In this case, I don't think that I can give a meaningful answer in a few paragraphs. To understand where I'm coming from requires a lot of context.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question. >>>>>> That was because he was a smart-alec.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>>>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but >>>>>>>> you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese
Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem.
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of >>>>>>>>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in >>>>>>>> my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a >>>>>>>> personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are >>>>>>>> intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me >>>>>>>> the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an >>>>>>>> attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an
obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but
are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on
being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move >>>>>>>> on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after
nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy. >>>>>> I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under
interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of
course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions >>>> for it.
How do you see it?
Do you believe in the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious?
*parallel* circumstantial response to any given emerging situation
rather than a shared unconscious--which implies some sort of a
connection? E.g., a man in a room in Jakarta opens a book at exactly the
same time as a man in a room in Bogota. The frontispiece is a large
color image of a coiled pit viper. They both flinch at precisely the
same time.
Are these connected in any direct way? To me, it is similar to noting
that these same two men also breathe while in the rooms.
Hmmm...I'll have to think this one thru, b.Not to be a smart guy, but I don't know enough about Jungian ideas.I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.
Now, if I were exchanging with another person with less integrity, I'd
look at the addition of Jungian ideas here at this point in the
discussion, whose topic is how to judge the intent of an unanswered
question, as an attempt to change the subject. But I do not feel that
this is the case here.
So I'd like to return to the original discussion after this little detour.
On 9/30/23 8:35 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:I can buy that.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Spirituality is personal, not something one "proves" in a mathematical or scientific sense.
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.It's not too difficult. If Jesus is more than a symbolic avatar as you
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I
engaged you. Should I stop?
so confidently asserted, you should have something concrete to back it
up.
It occurs to me that in the higher animals there may be a threshold for
what we loosely term spirituality. It might be that chimps have some rudimentary feelings of spiritual awe in some situations.
Or maybe it's possible that mankind represents the boundary, and that
we're the only animate life form on earth to possess spirituality?
What do you think?
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I don't
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping ahead,
divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in his
so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's good,
collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will all
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
Perhaps not :-)
On 9/30/23 8:35 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Spirituality is personal, not something one "proves" in a mathematical
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.It's not too difficult. If Jesus is more than a symbolic avatar as you
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I
engaged you. Should I stop?
so confidently asserted, you should have something concrete to back it
up.
or scientific sense.
I can buy that.
It occurs to me that in the higher animals there may be a threshold for
what we loosely term spirituality. It might be that chimps have some rudimentary feelings of spiritual awe in some situations.
Or maybe it's possible that mankind represents the boundary, and that
we're the only animate life form on earth to possess spirituality?
What do you think?
On 9/30/23 8:40 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:30:37 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Evolved fear of being bitten by a snake?
On 9/30/23 7:45 AM, bmoore wrote:The point is that it's not so much parallel as all rooted in the same thing.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:How does it differ from evolved instinctual response, implying a
On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:In this case, I don't think that I can give a meaningful answer in a few paragraphs. To understand where I'm coming from requires a lot of context.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question. >>>>>> That was because he was a smart-alec.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem. >>>>>>>>> Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese
culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a
personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are
intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me
the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an
attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an
obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but
are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on
being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move >>>>>>>> on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after
nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy. >>>>>> I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under
interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of
course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions
for it.
How do you see it?
Do you believe in the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious?
*parallel* circumstantial response to any given emerging situation
rather than a shared unconscious--which implies some sort of a
connection? E.g., a man in a room in Jakarta opens a book at exactly the >> same time as a man in a room in Bogota. The frontispiece is a large
color image of a coiled pit viper. They both flinch at precisely the
same time.
Are these connected in any direct way? To me, it is similar to noting
that these same two men also breathe while in the rooms.
Those without it are in added danger when encountering a snake, right?
Is he saying that we all share an unconscious desire to eat when hungry? Would this be an example?
Do you have an example that you'd like to use here? Maybe that will help.
Hmmm...I'll have to think this one thru, b.Not to be a smart guy, but I don't know enough about Jungian ideas.I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.
Now, if I were exchanging with another person with less integrity, I'd
look at the addition of Jungian ideas here at this point in the
discussion, whose topic is how to judge the intent of an unanswered
question, as an attempt to change the subject. But I do not feel that
this is the case here.
So I'd like to return to the original discussion after this little detour.
--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will all
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
How can anyone claim with a straight face that murderers like
Lukashenko and Putin are good men? Seriously.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:23:56 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Or Churchill.
I don't agree with TT here but it is a funny remark.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in >> spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:47:01 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 8:40 AM, bmoore wrote:That's a common example, yes.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:30:37 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Evolved fear of being bitten by a snake?
On 9/30/23 7:45 AM, bmoore wrote:The point is that it's not so much parallel as all rooted in the same thing.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:How does it differ from evolved instinctual response, implying a
In this case, I don't think that I can give a meaningful answer in a few paragraphs. To understand where I'm coming from requires a lot of context.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:
Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question. >>>>>>>> That was because he was a smart-alec.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
We're getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.I see, you don't want to answer the question. No problem. >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please, that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
us, but on reflection, are true.
The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that he is God but
also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to gaslight you into
what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on some level, and
that's great.
you see the studied failure to respond to a direct question in Japanese
culture a lot.
When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
my wife's brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a
personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are >>>>>>>>>> intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
I don't even do that to people I don't like, so of course it rubbed me
the wrong way.
But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an
attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they will lose face,
or more directly, a situation where their only answer means lying in an
obvious manner, or losing face.
This then leads to the notion that they're not trying to ignore me, but
are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
Then you get over that, too. It's simply a different priority placed on
being "right" than I'm used to.
Because I've never really seen the need for face-saving
rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move >>>>>>>>>> on--I've not done much of it.
And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of it now, after
nearly 40 years, because with me, there's not a penalty for being wrong.
Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on. Try not to do it
twice, the same way.
In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy. >>>>>>>> I believe that the technical term is that it's a "dodge".
;^)
seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under
interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of >>>>>> course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions >>>>>> for it.
How do you see it?
Do you believe in the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious?
*parallel* circumstantial response to any given emerging situation
rather than a shared unconscious--which implies some sort of a
connection? E.g., a man in a room in Jakarta opens a book at exactly the >>>> same time as a man in a room in Bogota. The frontispiece is a large
color image of a coiled pit viper. They both flinch at precisely the
same time.
Are these connected in any direct way? To me, it is similar to noting
that these same two men also breathe while in the rooms.
Those without it are in added danger when encountering a snake, right?https://study.com/academy/lesson/collective-unconscious-definition-examples.html#:~:text=This%20collective%20unconscious%20definition%20includes,fear%20of%20snakes%20or%20spiders.
Is he saying that we all share an unconscious desire to eat when hungry?
Would this be an example?
Do you have an example that you'd like to use here? Maybe that will help.
Hmmm...I'll have to think this one thru, b.Not to be a smart guy, but I don't know enough about Jungian ideas.
Now, if I were exchanging with another person with less integrity, I'd >>>> look at the addition of Jungian ideas here at this point in the
discussion, whose topic is how to judge the intent of an unanswered
question, as an attempt to change the subject. But I do not feel that
this is the case here.
So I'd like to return to the original discussion after this little detour. >>> I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Perhaps not :-)
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
Sawfish kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 19.52:
On 9/30/23 8:35 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Spirituality is personal, not something one "proves" in a
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.It's not too difficult. If Jesus is more than a symbolic avatar as you >>>> so confidently asserted, you should have something concrete to back it >>>> up.
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I
engaged you. Should I stop?
mathematical or scientific sense.
I can buy that.
It occurs to me that in the higher animals there may be a threshold
for what we loosely term spirituality. It might be that chimps have
some rudimentary feelings of spiritual awe in some situations.
Or maybe it's possible that mankind represents the boundary, and that
we're the only animate life form on earth to possess spirituality?
What do you think?
Hard to say.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe
in spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
How can anyone claim with a straight face that murderers likeHe's here to practice the art of sophistry. Icey is here to fluff
Lukashenko and Putin are good men? Seriously.
fellow trolls.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:30:52 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in >>>> spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
Well at least that's setting the bar a lot lower.
On 9/30/23 9:56 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.
Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.Perhaps not :-)
May I ask honestly: why not?
If not here, then where?
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
Sawfish kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 21.12:
But right now there is also a very large number who, when asked,
count themselves among those who require no religious structure, but
in objectively reality they really do seem to require it. You can
recognize them by their rabid attachment to causes. metoo, qanon, the
green movement, BLM.
Good point. It's become a religion, too.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 9:56 AM, bmoore wrote:Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:May I ask honestly: why not?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Perhaps not :-)
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
If not here, then where?
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
But right now there is also a very large number who, when asked, count themselves among those who require no religious structure, but in
objectively reality they really do seem to require it. You can recognize
them by their rabid attachment to causes. metoo, qanon, the green
movement, BLM.
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.50:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:30:52 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:Well at least that's setting the bar a lot lower.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >>>>> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to
believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that
might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
You have to imagine it with Sagan's diction and it suddenly becomes legendary.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed
"smart asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
On 9/30/23 9:56 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:May I ask honestly: why not?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Perhaps not :-)
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
If not here, then where?
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
Here at least you'll be shouted down by drunken aggressive extremists... ;^)
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will all
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 9:56 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:May I ask honestly: why not?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Perhaps not :-)
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
If not here, then where?
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
Here at least you'll be shouted down by drunken aggressive extremists... ;^)
Rather than sanctimonious pricks? Yeah, I see your point -)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will all
But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity.
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will
But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity.
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the way
some choose to use them.
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
If it were only that...
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been in some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism. They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or contradict their self-appointed elite.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:If it were only that...
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find areStill steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the
asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local
newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart
asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been in some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism. They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or contradict their self-appointed elite.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are >>>> pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.If it were only that...
Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the >> asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local
newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart
asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
Here's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with
avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders last
year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking questions
for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence" stance,
and I said that they had never actually been punched robustly in the
face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:09 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, SawfishHere's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
wrote:
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, SawfishIf it were only that... ...but I was permanently ejected from
wrote:
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I oftenStill steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
find are pompous pussies. They *will not* engage
unconventional ideas.
Reddit just before I return to the asyl...ah, "discussion
group" here. I was tossed from my own local newspaper's
comments section, back when they still had one. Look, pal. I've
been 86-ed from much classier joints than this... It would be
my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed
"smart asses", or "wise guys". ;^)
in some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and
cronyism. They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout
their rules or contradict their self-appointed elite.
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my
default state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with
avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders
last year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking
questions for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence"
stance, and I said that they had never actually been punched
robustly in the face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful
speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
I like the IDEA of moderated forums. I'm not sure I've seen one work
fairly in practice yet. You either have an autocrat moderating or
(more often) a closely-knit set of individuals imbued with the power
to shut others down. This works fine if dealing with an
easily-measured activity such as profanity in a "family-oriented"
forum. But all too often, those with power wield it to silence or
banish anyone who persistently opposes one of their positions, OR who
doesn't properly bow-and-scrape for moderators or their pet
associates.
Gracchus kirjoitti 1.10.2023 klo 23.14:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:09 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, SawfishHere's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
wrote:
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, SawfishIf it were only that... ...but I was permanently ejected from
wrote:
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I oftenStill steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
find are pompous pussies. They *will not* engage
unconventional ideas.
Reddit just before I return to the asyl...ah, "discussion
group" here. I was tossed from my own local newspaper's
comments section, back when they still had one. Look, pal. I've
been 86-ed from much classier joints than this... It would be
my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from moderated
groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed
"smart asses", or "wise guys". ;^)
in some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and
cronyism. They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout
their rules or contradict their self-appointed elite.
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my
default state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with
avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders
last year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking
questions for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence"
stance, and I said that they had never actually been punched
robustly in the face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful
speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
I like the IDEA of moderated forums. I'm not sure I've seen one work
fairly in practice yet. You either have an autocrat moderating or
(more often) a closely-knit set of individuals imbued with the power
to shut others down. This works fine if dealing with an
easily-measured activity such as profanity in a "family-oriented"
forum. But all too often, those with power wield it to silence or
banish anyone who persistently opposes one of their positions, OR who
doesn't properly bow-and-scrape for moderators or their pet
associates.
True that. The only ones working perfectly fair have been a couple
classic gaming emulation forums. One very technical, one very friendly.
And couple classic arcade gaming forums which had anything but fair moderation. One was good for long time without any moderation really but
when Twingalaxies were bought it became very corporate and highly
moderated. The other had authoritarian owner moderator, who thinks
himself as righteous & fair while being anything but.
Heck, I got banned once for couple weeks at Nadal fan forum - I wasn't passionate enough a fan! :)
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Here's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been in
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find areIf it were only that...
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the >>> asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local
newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart >>> asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism.
They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or
contradict their self-appointed elite.
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default
state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with
avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders last
year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking questions
for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence" stance,
and I said that they had never actually been punched robustly in the
face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
On 2/10/2023 6:29 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>> On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:Here's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been inOn Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are >>>>> pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.If it were only that...
Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the >>> asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local
newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart >>> asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism.
They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or
contradict their self-appointed elite.
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default
state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with
avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders last year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking questions
for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence" stance,
and I said that they had never actually been punched robustly in the
face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
You never stood a chance from woke moderators, can't win.
I've had temporary bans (ie 1 month in sin bin) and also a permanent ban from specific 'lounges' after a couple temporary bans. Not reddit, but heavily moderated sites.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
How can anyone claim with a straight face that murderers likeHe's here to practice the art of sophistry. Icey is here to fluff
Lukashenko and Putin are good men? Seriously.
fellow trolls.
On 9/30/23 8:35 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:I can buy that.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:Spirituality is personal, not something one "proves" in a mathematical or scientific sense.
I am trying to discuss my beliefs, not prove anything to you.It's not too difficult. If Jesus is more than a symbolic avatar as you
When you brought up that your folks were part time Zen Buddhists, I
engaged you. Should I stop?
so confidently asserted, you should have something concrete to back it
up.
It occurs to me that in the higher animals there may be a threshold for
what we loosely term spirituality. It might be that chimps have some rudimentary feelings of spiritual awe in some situations.
Or maybe it's possible that mankind represents the boundary, and that
we're the only animate life form on earth to possess spirituality?
What do you think?
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will all
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
How can anyone claim with a straight face that murderers like Lukashenko and Putin are good men? Seriously.GREAT POSTING AGAIN!But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in >> spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 9:56 AM, bmoore wrote:Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>May I ask honestly: why not?
Perhaps not :-)I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
If not here, then where?
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
If it were only that...
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart asses", or "wise guys".
On 9/30/23 9:56 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:49:22 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:May I ask honestly: why not?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:40:10 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Perhaps not :-)
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.Indeed, this is a very interesting track to explore. Perhaps not on RST though.
If not here, then where?
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
in his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will
But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity.
That's true. But what are you responding to?Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the way
some choose to use them.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:09 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:with an easily-measured activity such as profanity in a "family-oriented" forum. But all too often, those with power wield it to silence or banish anyone who persistently opposes one of their positions, OR who doesn't properly bow-and-scrape for
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been in some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism. They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or contradict their self-appointed elite.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are >>>> pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.If it were only that...
Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the
asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local
newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from
moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart >> asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
Here's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with
avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders last year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking questions
for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence" stance,
and I said that they had never actually been punched robustly in the
face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.I like the IDEA of moderated forums. I'm not sure I've seen one work fairly in practice yet. You either have an autocrat moderating or (more often) a closely-knit set of individuals imbued with the power to shut others down. This works fine if dealing
I was even briefly in a forum which prohibited even *discussing* moderator decisions, like a mini totalitarian dictatorship.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:53:28 PM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 2/10/2023 6:29 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>> On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:Here's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been inOn Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:If it were only that...
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find are >>>>> pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.Still steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the
asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local
newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this...
It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from >>> moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart >>> asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism.
They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or >> contradict their self-appointed elite.
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default
state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders last year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking questions for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence" stance, and I said that they had never actually been punched robustly in the face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
You never stood a chance from woke moderators, can't win.Oh, that seems quite true. The PC thing is way out of control.
Read interesting discussion last week about the Russell Brand YouTube travesty(his whole channel has been demonitized simply for allegations from a newspaper, no trial/no proof of evidence etc.).
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing in
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will
I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the wayIt's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity.But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners. >>>
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
some choose to use them.
That's true. But what are you responding to?
The Iceberg kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 13.30:
Read interesting discussion last week about the Russell Brand YouTube travesty(his whole channel has been demonitized simply for allegations from a newspaper, no trial/no proof of evidence etc.).Yeah, that's not right.
It appears he may be guilty though...
"One woman alleges he raped her without a condom against a wall in his
Los Angeles home. She says Brand tried to stop her leaving until she
told him she was going to the bathroom. She was reportedly treated at a
rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times says it has
confirmed via medical records"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-66982208
...If the woman was treated in rape center (a what?) then she apparently
had been raped. But why didn't she go to the police then?
On 1.10.2023 17.54, bmoore wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote: >>>>>> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
in his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko. >>>>>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will
I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the wayBut there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity.
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
some choose to use them.
That's true. But what are you responding to?To what you said! A ditto by way of analogy :)
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best
colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
-- Lyndon B Johnson
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:27:46 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your beliefs, and I
On 1.10.2023 17.54, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote: >>>>>>>> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're jumping
in his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not believing
good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko. >>>>>>>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that's
all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it will
To what you said! A ditto by way of analogy :)I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the wayBut there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity. >>>>>
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
some choose to use them.
That's true. But what are you responding to?
Ah.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best
colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him
somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
-- Lyndon B Johnson
I don't usually respond to .sigs, but yes.
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in >> spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 10:24:25 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:whenever it happens. Read interesting discussion last week about the Russell Brand YouTube travesty(his whole channel has been demonitized simply for allegations from a newspaper, no trial/no proof of evidence etc.). Discussion said that the difference
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:53:28 PM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 2/10/2023 6:29 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/1/23 11:23 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:49:11 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Here's what got me thrown out of reddit, permanently.
On 9/30/23 11:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:I don't recall getting bounced from a moderated group. I've been in >> some I drifted out of, put off by arbitrary censorship and cronyism. >> They might have banned me if I'd stuck around to flout their rules or >> contradict their self-appointed elite.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:00:29 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:If it were only that...
I mean, I go to various specialty forums, and what I often find areStill steaming about that Ta-Nehisi Coates thing, hmm? ;)
pompous pussies. They *will not* engage unconventional ideas.
...but I was permanently ejected from Reddit just before I return to the
asyl...ah, "discussion group" here. I was tossed from my own local >>> newspaper's comments section, back when they still had one.
Look, pal. I've been 86-ed from much classier joints than this... >>> It would be my guess that you, too, have been summarily booted from >>> moderated groups, Gracchus. We are both what is commonly termed "smart
asses", or "wise guys".
;^)
I don't consider myself a smart ass--or at least it isn't my default >> state. Others may disagree, I don't know.
I was tired of some of the posters' single-minded absorption with avoiding asking questions of the survivors of the U of I murders last year. They suggested that investigators refrain from asking questions for an unspecified length of time.
This seemed so absurd that I objected.
The discussion evolved into the usual "but words are violence" stance, and I said that they had never actually been punched robustly in the face, or they'd know the difference between hurtful speech and actual violence.
That was it. I was banned.
oh please you actively agree with all the PC stuff and the bans, you and jdeluise would definitely ban skrip and myself from RST if you could had the choice, it the way you Marxists are. You can't stand being disagreed with and actively cry/complainYou never stood a chance from woke moderators, can't win.Oh, that seems quite true. The PC thing is way out of control.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
bmoore kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 18.19:jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:27:46 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 1.10.2023 17.54, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote: >>>>>>>> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're
believing in his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus".
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not
s good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko. >>>>>>>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that'
will all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it
To what you said! A ditto by way of analogy :)I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the way >>>> some choose to use them.But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity. >>>>>
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
That's true. But what are you responding to?
Ah.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best
colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him
somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
-- Lyndon B Johnson
I don't usually respond to .sigs, but yes.Possibly so with Johnson's reference to 1930s poor South.
Not so much for the context Pelle intended it, aka Europe's immigration crisis, bombings in Sweden etc.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >>>>>> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in >>>>>> spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >>>>>> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
There was less to know.
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and
God still doesn't exist.
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >>>>>> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
There was less to know.
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >>>>>>>> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
.Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but evolved.
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say, "an old man with a beard in the sky,"
then I would agree with your statement.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
.
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say, "an old man with a beard in the sky,"
then I would agree with your statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
.
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence of he/she/then/it cannot beThe burden of proof is on believers.
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say, "an old man with a beard in the sky,"Well that's something.
then I would agree with your statement.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but evolved.
Why not both?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity! >> He's intelligent, to a point.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved >>>>>> enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in >>>>>> spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that.
Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to
believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that
might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins
as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all
true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a
*current state* of science at any given time. Figures like Dawkins
once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc.,
because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see
and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes
*us* because it's state-of-the-art and we are people of our day.
People 100 years from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a
primitive joke with comical limitations. One need only look to the
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of human
hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too.
There was less to know.
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. >>>>>>>>> Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark
that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell
them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is
only a *current state* of science at any given time. Figures like
Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark
matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things
they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously,
today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-art and we are
people of our day. People 100 years from now (or quite possibly
less) will see it as a primitive joke with comical limitations. One
need only look to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a
humbling view of human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it
all then too
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to
speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits
from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and
think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence
of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say,
"an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with your
statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:37:42 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your
bmoore kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 18.19:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:27:46 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 1.10.2023 17.54, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>>>> On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're
believing in his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus". >>>>>>>>>>
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not
s good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything that'
will all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it
Possibly so with Johnson's reference to 1930s poor South.To what you said! A ditto by way of analogy :)I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the way >>>>>> some choose to use them.But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity. >>>>>>>
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
That's true. But what are you responding to?
Ah.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best
colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him >>>> somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
-- Lyndon B Johnson
I don't usually respond to .sigs, but yes.
Even with regard to 2020s US South, I'd say.
Not so much for the context Pelle intended it, aka Europe's immigration
crisis, bombings in Sweden etc.
Can't speak for Europe on this one.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
.
There was less to know.Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio. Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but evolved.
Why not both?Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. >>>>>>>>> Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell >>>> them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is >>>> only a *current state* of science at any given time. Figures like
Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark
matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things
they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously,
today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-art and we are
people of our day. People 100 years from now (or quite possibly
less) will see it as a primitive joke with comical limitations. One >>>> need only look to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a >>>> humbling view of human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it >>>> all then too
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to
speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits
from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and
think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence
of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say,
"an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with your
statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
almost anything.
On 2.10.2023 22.17, bmoore wrote:jumping ahead, though. The rigid discipline that your parents> were exposed to is the right place to start, maybe.>> And while I don't much care what you believe, I am happy to make some> effort to explain my beliefs to you.I don't care about your
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:37:42 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 18.19:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:27:46 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 1.10.2023 17.54, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:19:21 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 1.10.2023 5.37, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:59:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 30.9.2023 18.19, The Iceberg wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 19:57:10 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:>> I am responding, but as I said, we are getting ahead of ourselves, and> I don't expect you to find my answer satisfying.>> There is a God. What that is, I don't know. But Jesus is part of that.>> You're
believing in his divinity with all of his heart and mind, Sawfish is on board with symbolism of Jesus, what he represents to us.
Your hatred blinds you. You can't read and follow because you're full of hate.
1. Sawfish asks me about "why do we need symbol of Jesus". >>>>>>>>>>
2. Bmoore immediately gets it wrong. Bmoore starts explaining that Jesus is a real person, as per doctrine he's a Son of God, not a symbol within Christianity.
3. You get it even more wrong posting your nonsense that Jesus is non-existent or whatever. Yawn.
Back to 1, I understood Sawfish's question properly. He asked from an atheistic or non-believer point of view, admitting that Jesus is the absolute good (so that's whete Sawfish is opposite from you and Jews), but at the same time not
that's good, so Sawfish asks (himself too but as well) why do we as people can't maintain approach to life, morals and everything else without following Jesus as such symbol?
In that sense, Sawfish is like President of Belarus, Lukashenko. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko
Lukashenko describes himself as an "Orthodox atheist" and has said that he believes that the president should be a conservative person...
Just as Lukashenko has been raised in Soviet times and not part of the church, Sawfish is outside of church too, doesn't follow rituals and ceremony but is on board with all of it socially, and for him Jesus is just a symbol of everything
will all collapse without Jesus.
I answered him.
Because he's the living God. When you try to create even good stuff, and have all the best intentions, it will all come down eventually if you do invite Jesus.
If he was merely a symbol it would have gone away long time ago and would have been replaced by something new which would have served the same purpose.
So I kinda sense Sawfish is perhaps even worried for his descendants. I must say the fear is justified. Without Jesus, his descendants will be ruined too. They won't be like Sawfish, they will be like Pelle. Over time.
I'm not threatening him, nor do I wish that to him. But it will happen, grandsons or great-grandsons or further down the line but it's inevitable.
That's why Putin took Lukashenko to embrace Jesus. He knows Lukashenko is set straight right now, but only because of his upbringing in conservative soviet period and parents' influence who were raised as Christians and in the long term it
Possibly so with Johnson's reference to 1930s poor South.To what you said! A ditto by way of analogy :)I don't see anything wrong with statistics either. It's just the way >>>>>> some choose to use them.But there's no question that you twins are shameless, unrepentant sinners.
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/07/21/why-vladimir-putin-took-an-atheist-to-an-ancient-monastery
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus accompanied his Russian counterpart to the magnificent monastery of Valaam this week
GREAT POSTING AGAIN!
It's been said that so-called "Christians" have ruined Christianity. >>>>>>>
Hypocrisy, judgement and shallowness.
That's true. But what are you responding to?
Ah.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best >>>> colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him >>>> somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
-- Lyndon B Johnson
I don't usually respond to .sigs, but yes.
Even with regard to 2020s US South, I'd say.Tiny is just making excuses for himself.
Not so much for the context Pelle intended it, aka Europe's immigration >> crisis, bombings in Sweden etc.
Can't speak for Europe on this one.For Finland, it couldn't be more spot on.
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at allAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:51:09 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:didn't the pandemic prove that to be the case for atheists everywhere?
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
He's intelligent, to a point.Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. >>>>>>>>>>> EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Christianity!
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell >>>>>> them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is >>>>>> only a *current state* of science at any given time. Figures like
Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark
matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things
they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously,
today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-art and we are >>>>>> people of our day. People 100 years from now (or quite possibly
less) will see it as a primitive joke with comical limitations. One >>>>>> need only look to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a >>>>>> humbling view of human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it >>>>>> all then too
There was less to know.Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to
speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits
from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints andOn what do they disagree exactly?
think he's a dick.
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution isUntil there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say,Well that's something.
"an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with your
statement.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
almost anything.
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 22:06:01 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:time. Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given
Should say back in the 90's saw him in a lecture get challenged by a Christian and he went nuts and fell apart, he couldn't take being challenged on his views, this was before was religious, he prob wrote the God Delusion out of anger, which is why it's.bmoore seems to live a very sheltered life, perhaps he does only watch CNN and National Geographic? dawkins is considered an idiot, his science has YUGELY changed too, just look up his stupid Selfish Gene and see how that works these days oh it doesn't.
There was less to know.Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio. Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but evolved.
Why not both?Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but
evolved.
Why not both?
The burden of proof is on believers.
Why?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at allAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The Iceberg kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 15.09:all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
I don't think we came from nothing.
But it's the old catch-22... If god created us, then where did he come
from? So that solves nothing, makes it just degrees more complicated/unbelievable.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:04:04 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but >>>> evolved.
Why not both?
Well, I'll ask TT again - why not a God who set up evolution?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but >>>>> evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbig fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at all
Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary "Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate by anactor playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually left this in the movie.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. >>>>>>>>>> Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell
them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is
only a *current state* of science at any given time. Figures like
Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark
matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things
they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously,
today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-art and we are
people of our day. People 100 years from now (or quite possibly
less) will see it as a primitive joke with comical limitations. One
need only look to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a
humbling view of human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it
all then too
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to
speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits
from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and
think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence
of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say,
"an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with your
statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
almost anything.
The Iceberg kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 15.09:all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
I don't think we came from nothing.
But it's the old catch-22... If god created us, then where did he come
from? So that solves nothing, makes it just degrees more complicated/unbelievable.
bmoore kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 17.32:in an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:04:04 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Well, I'll ask TT again - why not a God who set up evolution?Where did that God evolve from then?
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. >>>>>>>>>> Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell >>>>> them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is >>>>> only a *current state* of science at any given time. Figures like >>>>> Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark
matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things >>>>> they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously,
today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-the-art and we are >>>>> people of our day. People 100 years from now (or quite possibly
less) will see it as a primitive joke with comical limitations. One >>>>> need only look to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a >>>>> humbling view of human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it >>>>> all then too
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to >>> speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits
from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and
think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence >>> of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say,
"an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with your
statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people
in religions are *that* perfect.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:in an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation
all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbig fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
an actor playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually left this in the movie.Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary "Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate by
I don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant to
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of formulating opinions. On other things as well.
Yes, I agree Dawkins is a dry & often humourless.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:34:38 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:creation in an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake,"
all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbig fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
by an actor playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually left this in the movie.Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary "Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate
no intellectual and is a coward in debate, as illustrated in my examples. Yes, I know you never said he was any kind of kindred spirit. I mention him because he represents the TYPE of atheist I detest. I know there are others who engage in honestI don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant toI think it's relevant in Maher's case at least because he's a smug, arrogant bastard whose whole approach is ridicule and strawmen set before an audience who will jeer at his targets on cue. He thinks his atheism makes him a cool rationalist when he's
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of formulating opinions. On other things as well.
Yes, I agree Dawkins is a dry & often humourless.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't
created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with
someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon
that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit
with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in an actual
seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a
transparent tactic.
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally
NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're
all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's
right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist
like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the
subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary
"Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate by an actor
playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's
driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually
left this in the movie.
I don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant to
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of
formulating opinions. On other things as well.
Yes, I agree Dawkins is a dry & often humourless.
The Iceberg kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 15.09:
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally
NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're
all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's
right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I don't think we came from nothing.
But it's the old catch-22... If god created us, then where did he come
from? So that solves nothing, makes it just degrees more complicated/unbelievable.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The Iceberg kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 15.09:
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
believe. That "Catch-22" may not be a conundrum at all.I don't think we came from nothing.
But it's the old catch-22... If god created us, then where did he come
from? So that solves nothing, makes it just degrees more
complicated/unbelievable.
You are half-right in that we don't have an answer. But we also don't understand most of the universe and may never be able to with finite human brains. Quantum physics suggests the laws of cause-and-effect may be less fixed than we are taught to
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:04:04 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but >>>> evolved.Why not both?
Well, I'll ask TT again - why not a God who set up evolution?
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have
that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to
Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can
tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize
there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity,
bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be
affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet
measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's
state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years
from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke
with comical limitations. One need only look to the
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of
human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up
to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental
bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and
think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the
existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you
say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with
your statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
almost anything.
Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people
in religions are *that* perfect.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:59:42 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:in an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:34:38 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created butWhy not both?
evolved.
all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbig fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
an actor playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually left this in the movie.Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary "Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate by
no intellectual and is a coward in debate, as illustrated in my examples. Yes, I know you never said he was any kind of kindred spirit. I mention him because he represents the TYPE of atheist I detest. I know there are others who engage in honestI don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant toI think it's relevant in Maher's case at least because he's a smug, arrogant bastard whose whole approach is ridicule and strawmen set before an audience who will jeer at his targets on cue. He thinks his atheism makes him a cool rationalist when he's
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
A TV atheist. Smug, yes.Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of formulating
opinions. On other things as well.
Yes, I agree Dawkins is a dry & often humourless.
On 10/3/23 10:21 AM, bmoore wrote:s no intellectual and is a coward in debate, as illustrated in my examples. Yes, I know you never said he was any kind of kindred spirit. I mention him because he represents the TYPE of atheist I detest. I know there are others who engage in honest
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:59:42 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
I think it's relevant in Maher's case at least because he's a smug, arrogant bastard whose whole approach is ridicule and strawmen set before an audience who will jeer at his targets on cue. He thinks his atheism makes him a cool rationalist when he'
Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of formulating >>> opinions. On other things as well.
A TV atheist. Smug, yes.
Ever notice how, if viewers think the TV personality is on *their* side,
the love smug?
Absolutely love it...
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:48:58 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:s no intellectual and is a coward in debate, as illustrated in my examples. Yes, I know you never said he was any kind of kindred spirit. I mention him because he represents the TYPE of atheist I detest. I know there are others who engage in honest
On 10/3/23 10:21 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:59:42 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
I think it's relevant in Maher's case at least because he's a smug, arrogant bastard whose whole approach is ridicule and strawmen set before an audience who will jeer at his targets on cue. He thinks his atheism makes him a cool rationalist when he'
I hear Andy Rooney's creaky voice when you ask that.Ever notice how, if viewers think the TV personality is on *their* side,A TV atheist. Smug, yes.Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of formulating >>>>> opinions. On other things as well.
the love smug?
Absolutely love it...I don't.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The Iceberg kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 15.09:
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
I don't think we came from nothing.
But it's the old catch-22... If god created us, then where did he come from? So that solves nothing, makes it just degrees more complicated/unbelievable.God didn't come from anywhere. The very fact that we all exist is astounding. I know, it's a tough one.
bmoore kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 1.36:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but >> evolved.
Why not both?
Because either you believe there's a god that made us as the story goes,
or you don't.
If you believe that "he" made the universe and evolution took care of
the rest... well I don't see any need for god there.
The burden of proof is on believers.
Why?
If you claim Pegasus, Santa Claus, Zeus etc exist... the proof is on
you. As Sagan said;
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:04:05 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:time. Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 22:06:01 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given
t. Should say back in the 90's saw him in a lecture get challenged by a Christian and he went nuts and fell apart, he couldn't take being challenged on his views, this was before was religious, he prob wrote the God Delusion out of anger, which is why it'.bmoore seems to live a very sheltered life, perhaps he does only watch CNN and National Geographic? dawkins is considered an idiot, his science has YUGELY changed too, just look up his stupid Selfish Gene and see how that works these days oh it doesn'
There was less to know.Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio. Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
You are very judgmental. God is the only one who can truly judge us.
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 17:22:34 UTC+1, TT wrote:atheists if God appeared in your front room and said "Hello I am God", what would you do? many have said "deny it" or "try to rationally explain it away".
bmoore kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 1.36:yes agree.
Because either you believe there's a god that made us as the story goes,Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but >>>> evolved.Why not both?
or you don't.
If you believe that "he" made the universe and evolution took care of
the rest... well I don't see any need for god there.
yes in a way, it's up to us to convince you that you can have a personal relationship with the living God or least to give him a chance. That different from proving to the entire human world all at once that God exists though cos have asked manyIf you claim Pegasus, Santa Claus, Zeus etc exist... the proof is onThe burden of proof is on believers.Why?
you. As Sagan said;
On 10/3/23 9:34 AM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't
created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with
someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon
that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit
with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation in an actual
seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a
transparent tactic.
big fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally
NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're
all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's
right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH >>
like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the
subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary
"Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate by an actor
playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's
driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually
left this in the movie.
I don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant to
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
Of these "pop atheists" I think I preferred Hichens' way of
formulating opinions. On other things as well.
Yes, I agree Dawkins is a dry & often humourless.
To me, both Hitchens and WF Buckley, while mentally agile and clever,
seemed to start from the idea that their favored position was correct.
In this regard, neither was open to questing for the objectively
verifiable truth. Both very gradually migrated their worldviews,
somewhat, but they had made such a loud noise about being right over the years that their egos could lock them into untenable positions, as I recall.
So far as popular spokespeople who have it "right" I know of no one, and this is because they are popular as a part of their livelihood, and if
they migrate their positions much, they will lose theri followings.
The closest I see now is a guy who writes under the name Theodore
Dalrymple. When I read his observations, I find that I'm not too
offended very often when I read his stuff.
But I view no one as a spokesman for my own position other than me, and
I switch around, as the incoming evidence requires.
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>> that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>> Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can
tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity,
bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be
affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet
measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's
state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to the
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of
human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too
There was less to know.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up
to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental
bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...
Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and
think he's a dick.
On what do they disagree exactly?
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the
existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
The burden of proof is on believers.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you
say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with
your statement.
Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
almost anything.
Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see peopleWell, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging,
in religions are *that* perfect.
the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:34:38 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:creation in an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created but
evolved.
Why not both?
Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake,"
all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbig fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
by an actor playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually left this in the movie.Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary "Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate
no intellectual and is a coward in debate, as illustrated in my examples. Yes, I know you never said he was any kind of kindred spirit. I mention him because he represents the TYPE of atheist I detest. I know there are others who engage in honestI don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant toI think it's relevant in Maher's case at least because he's a smug, arrogant bastard whose whole approach is ridicule and strawmen set before an audience who will jeer at his targets on cue. He thinks his atheism makes him a cool rationalist when he's
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 17:59:42 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:in an actual seven days, the Earth as 7000 years old, etc. It's such a transparent tactic.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:34:38 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 16.35:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:09:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 00:04:04 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:36:51 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Indeed, an obvious question. Sadly, you are discussing this with someone who thinks any non-atheist has to be a fundamentalist goon that takes Genesis literally. This is more of the Bill Maher shit with caricatures of "the talking snake," creation
Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created butWhy not both?
evolved.
all AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHbig fan of Bill Maher type atheists yeah we came from literally NOTHING! yeah there was a Big Bang from literally NOTHING also we're all just chemical reactions yet am still going to claim there's right/wrong and give to charity for zero reason at
an actor playing Jesus at a retreat, so they cut to a new scene where Bill's driving in his car prattling about his own thoughts. They actually left this in the movie.Bill Maher always ridicules anyone on his show who isn't an atheist like him. But if they challenge his views, he'll always change the subject or focus on another guest. In his vanity documentary "Religulous," Maher gets left speechless in debate by
no intellectual and is a coward in debate, as illustrated in my examples. Yes, I know you never said he was any kind of kindred spirit. I mention him because he represents the TYPE of atheist I detest. I know there are others who engage in honestI don't think your opinions on Maher / Dawkins are really relevant toI think it's relevant in Maher's case at least because he's a smug, arrogant bastard whose whole approach is ridicule and strawmen set before an audience who will jeer at his targets on cue. He thinks his atheism makes him a cool rationalist when he's
the topic. They can be dicks all right but that doesn't prove anything.
yeah that why am big fan of saying stuff like above to these guys faces cos they really can't take it. Is very funny having whole table in pub or cafe have interrupted attack/shout/abuse/throw-stuff for destroying the arguments of some "intellectual"atheist Maher-type, then shouting "YEAH you maroons so rational and scientific LOL" whilst running off to escape assault! must say them atheists no way as scary folks as the Fedfans used to be :D
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging,
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created >>>>> but evolved.
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob likeHe's intelligent, to a point.am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity,
bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be
affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet
measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's
state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to the
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too
There was less to know.Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental
bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints andOn what do they disagree exactly?
think he's a dick.
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>>>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the
existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as youWell that's something.
say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>> your statement.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
almost anything.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people
in religions are *that* perfect.
the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:>> On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:>>> Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:>>>> On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:>Iceberg wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We may well be
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The
So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up>>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental>>>>>> bits from here on in?>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...>>>>>> Look up his bio.>>>>>with comical limitations. One need only look to the>>>>>>>> Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too>>>>>> .>>>>>>> There was less to know.>>>>>> Seriously?
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging,
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy >>>> almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created >>>>> but evolved.
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>> bits from here on in?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:There was less to know.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity,On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's
state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to the
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>> .
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>>>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the
existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>> your statement.Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people >>> in religions are *that* perfect.
the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and
Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I
know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the
same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that
they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation.
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:Bueller? :-)
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging,
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy >>>>>> almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created >>>>>>> but evolved.
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>> bits from here on in?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:There was less to know.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to theOn Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>> .
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>>>>>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the
existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>>>> your statement.Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people >>>>> in religions are *that* perfect.
the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the
initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and
Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I
know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the
same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that
they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation.
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts is consciousness, I think.
On 10/4/23 12:15 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:Bueller? :-)
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging, >>>> the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy >>>>>> almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created >>>>>>> but evolved.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>> bits from here on in?On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:There was less to know.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to theOn Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>> .
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist... >>>>>>>> Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution isUntil there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the >>>>>>>> existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>>>> your statement.Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's >>>>>>> something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people >>>>> in religions are *that* perfect.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the
initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and >> Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I
know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the
same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that >> they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation. >>
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts is consciousness, I think.This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve struggled
or contended with other named groups, these groups were not homo
sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of humanity descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where would the Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?
Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and
idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we
should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken literally,
and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve
struggled or contended with other named groups, these groups were not
homo sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of
humanity descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where
would the Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:28:24 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On 10/4/23 12:15 PM, bmoore wrote:It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to be
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:Bueller? :-)
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive >>>> mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging, >>>>>> the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy >>>>>>>> almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created >>>>>>>>> but evolved.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>>>> bits from here on in?On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:There was less to know.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>>>>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to theOn Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>>>> .
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist... >>>>>>>>>> Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>>>>>>>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the >>>>>>>>>> existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>>>>>> your statement.Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's >>>>>>>>> something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>>>
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people >>>>>>> in religions are *that* perfect.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the
initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and >>>> Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I >>>> know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the >>>> same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that >>>> they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation. >>>>
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts is consciousness, I think.
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals
created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of
evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve struggled
or contended with other named groups, these groups were not homo
sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of humanity
descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where would the
Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
On 10/4/23 12:15 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:Bueller? :-)
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging, >>>>> the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy >>>>>>> almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>>> bits from here on in?On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:There was less to know.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive >>>>>>>>>>> jokeOn Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
with comical limitations. One need only look to the
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>>> .
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio.
created
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. TheUntil there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the
evolution is
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>>>>> your statement.Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's
something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>>
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see
people
in religions are *that* perfect.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the
initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and
Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I
know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the
same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that
they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that
interpretation.
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts
is consciousness, I think.
This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve struggled
or contended with other named groups, these groups were not homo
sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of humanity descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where would the Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?And how do you know what was meant to be taken literally and what not?
Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken literally,
and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Especially when you're working with something that has been
translated.... the translation itself is just a rough interpretation of
the original and will (and I'm sure did in the case of the bible) often include the translator's bias
bmoore <bmoore@nyx.net> writes:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?
Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and
idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we
should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken literally,
and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
And how do you know what was meant to be taken literally and what not? Especially when you're working with something that has been
translated.... the translation itself is just a rough interpretation of
the original and will (and I'm sure did in the case of the bible) often include the translator's bias.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:28:24 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On 10/4/23 12:15 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:Bueller? :-)
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive >>>> mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging, >>>>>> the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy >>>>>>>> almost anything.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created >>>>>>>>> but evolved.
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up >>>>>>>>>> to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>>>> bits from here on in?On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:There was less to know.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke >>>>>>>>>>>> with comical limitations. One need only look to theOn Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. EvolvedLet, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>>>> .
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist... >>>>>>>>>> Look up his bio.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution is >>>>>>>>>>> still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.Until there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the >>>>>>>>>> existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan >>>>>>>>>
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with >>>>>>>>>> your statement.Well that's something.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's >>>>>>>>> something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>>>
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people >>>>>>> in religions are *that* perfect.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the
initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and >>>> Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I >>>> know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the >>>> same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that >>>> they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation. >>>>
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts is consciousness, I think.
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals
created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of
evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve struggled
or contended with other named groups, these groups were not homo
sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of humanity
descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where would the
Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to be
A fine quotation from Jesus.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals
created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of
evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve
struggled or contended with other named groups, these groups were not
homo sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of
humanity descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where
would the Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
Must have been fun times on the ark!
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:28:24 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/4/23 12:15 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
Bueller? :-)On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive >>>> mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging, >>>>>> the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now upOn Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:There was less to know.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Evolvedthat might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to
believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark
with comical limitations. One need only look to the >>>>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>>>> .
to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>>>> bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist... >>>>>>>>>> Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution isUntil there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the >>>>>>>>>> existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree withWell that's something.
your statement.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's >>>>>>>>> something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>>>
almost anything.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people
in religions are *that* perfect.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the >>>> initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and >>>> Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I >>>> know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the >>>> same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that >>>> they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation.
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts is consciousness, I think.
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals
created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of
evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve struggled >> or contended with other named groups, these groups were not homo
sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of humanity >> descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where would the
Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
A fine quotation from Jesus.*attributed to Jesus
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:36:53 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
A fine quotation from Jesus.*attributed to Jesus
You be quite the doubter, sir. Which is fine.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:36:53 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
A fine quotation from Jesus.*attributed to Jesus
You be quite the doubter, sir. Which is fine.Why should I believe anything the bible says? It's fine you're so indoctrin... er. trusting, I'm not.
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.No reputable historian of that time said so.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and
idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that
we should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken
literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
No reputable historian of that time said so. And the bible was
written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.No reputable historian of that time said so.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
I've been to Shakespeare's house, not so much with Ragnar & Jesus.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
No reputable historian of that time said so.
Who were the reputable historians of that time who were based in that part of the world?
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and
idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that
we should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken
literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
No reputable historian of that time said so. And the bible was
written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
There's some evidence, very little. imo it's somewhere between Ragnar Lodbrok and William Shakespeare.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
They want to see the bones. No bones, no Jesus. But if Jesus ascended to heaven, then you wouldn't find any bones. And if there aren't any bones to find, that's proof of the resurrection. Case closed. :)Who were the reputable historians of that time who were based in that part of the world?No reputable historian of that time said so.Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later.No reputable historian of that time said so.Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe theory that he didn't, is that what you're saying?
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
that he didn't, is that what you're saying?No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later. Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe theory
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.14:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
theory that he didn't, is that what you're saying?No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later. Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe
There is no proof outside of bible.Josephus & Tacitus 60 & 100 years
after his alleged death.
Even if a Jesus existed, he was no son of God and couldn't do miracles.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
Who were the reputable historians of that time who were based in that part of the world?
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
No reputable historian of that time said so.
Who were the reputable historians of that time who were based in that part of the world?
They want to see the bones. No bones, no Jesus. But if Jesus ascended to heaven, then you wouldn't find any bones. And if there aren't any bones to find, that's proof of the resurrection. Case closed. :)
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.20:
They want to see the bones. No bones, no Jesus. But if Jesus ascended to heaven, then you wouldn't find any bones. And if there aren't any bones to find, that's proof of the resurrection. Case closed. :)
And you can't make a straw-man without straws... now can you?
Oh yes, you definitely can.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:42:40 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:meant to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.14:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were
theory that he didn't, is that what you're saying?No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later. Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe
There is no proof outside of bible.Josephus & Tacitus 60 & 100 years
after his alleged death.
So the answer is yes, you want to adhere to the silly fringe theory.
Even if a Jesus existed, he was no son of God and couldn't do miracles.
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's state-of-
Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have that. Evolved
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot.
Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark that might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde?
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to Christianity!
He's intelligent, to a point.
It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize there is only a *current state* of science at any given time.
.statement.
There was less to know.Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now up to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist...Look up his bio. Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and think he's a dick.
So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution isUntil there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the existence of he/she/then/it cannot be disproved. If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree with your
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:49:37 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:meant to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:42:40 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.14:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were
theory that he didn't, is that what you're saying?No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later. Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe
view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.There is no proof outside of bible.Josephus & Tacitus 60 & 100 years after his alleged death.
So the answer is yes, you want to adhere to the silly fringe theory.
Even if a Jesus existed, he was no son of God and couldn't do miracles.
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you apparently
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?And how do you know what was meant to be taken literally and what not? Especially when you're working with something that has been
Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken literally,
and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
translated.... the translation itself is just a rough interpretation of
the original and will (and I'm sure did in the case of the bible) often include the translator's bias.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
Must decide for yourself.It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.And how do you know what was meant to be taken literally and what not?
Especially when you're working with something that has beenYes, that's why I prefer word for word translations.
translated.... the translation itself is just a rough interpretation of the original and will (and I'm sure did in the case of the bible) often include the translator's bias
jdeluise kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.06:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible?Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and >>>> idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that >>>> we should take the parts literally that were meant to be taken
literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
No reputable historian of that time said so. And the bible was
written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
There's some evidence, very little. imo it's somewhere between Ragnar Lodbrok and William Shakespeare.I've been to Shakespeare's house, not so much with Ragnar & Jesus.
On 10/4/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:28:24 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/4/23 12:15 PM, bmoore wrote:It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were meant to
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 10/4/23 11:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:This is a list of humans and proto-humans. Do you feel that it's
Bueller? :-)On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 18:47:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:You are correct that evolution explains only the on-going reproductive >>>> mechanism *AFTER* the first inception of life.
On 10/3/23 9:43 AM, TT wrote:yes doesn't evolution rely on a virgin birth? or what is it somehow we have 6 ancestors, yeah 6 like what? LOL
Sawfish kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 3.51:Well, to the primitive first coming out of habitual knuckle-dragging, >>>>>> the concept of a virgin birth is the apogee of hip paradox.
On 10/2/23 2:28 PM, TT wrote:Yep. Probably had it in all holes.
Gracchus kirjoitti 3.10.2023 klo 0.05:You know though, if you can believe in the virgin birth, you can buy
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 2.10.2023 klo 22.44:Yeah, still evolutionary biologist. So knows that we weren't created
Seriously? So our early 21st-century scientists are finally now upOn Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:There was less to know.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:47:34 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:It's good for a laugh watching people look up to a boob like >>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins as some great "go-to" guru of rational science who can >>>>>>>>>>>> tell them all true reality amounts to. They refuse to recognize >>>>>>>>>>>> there is only a *current state* of science at any given time. >>>>>>>>>>>> Figures like Dawkins once ridiculed belief in electricity, >>>>>>>>>>>> bacteria, dark matter, etc., because how could humans ever be >>>>>>>>>>>> affected by things they couldn't see and science couldn't yet >>>>>>>>>>>> measure? Obviously, today's science awes *us* because it's >>>>>>>>>>>> state-of-the-art and we are people of our day. People 100 years >>>>>>>>>>>> from now (or quite possibly less) will see it as a primitive joke
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 18:30:52 UTC+1, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 30.9.2023 klo 20.23:He's intelligent, to a point.
am big fan of Dawkins, shows how dumb atheism is compared to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity!On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:I'd prefer Dawkins/Sagan.
We may well be the only culture in the universe to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Evolvedthat might have easily come from the pen of Twain or Wilde? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
enough to believe in spirituality... and primitive enough to
believe in
spirituality. Brief evolutionary sweet spot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let, me guess--this is supposed to be a wry, poignant remark
with comical limitations. One need only look to the >>>>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, etc. for a humbling view of >>>>>>>>>>>> human hubris. They were quite certain they knew it all then too >>>>>>>>>> .
to speed on universal knowledge and it's only adding incremental >>>>>>>>>> bits from here on in?
As for Dawkins, he's evolutionary biologist and atheist... >>>>>>>>>> Look up his bio.
but evolved.
Even many of his fellow atheists disagree with his viewpoints and >>>>>>>>>> think he's a dick.On what do they disagree exactly?
The burden of proof is on believers.So I doubt his area of expertise has changed much. The evolution isUntil there's agreement on what "God" would consist of, the >>>>>>>>>> existence of he/she/then/it cannot be
still largely the same and God still doesn't exist.
disproved.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
If referring to an anthropomorphic "God" in the form of, as you >>>>>>>>>> say, "an old man with a beard in the sky," then I would agree withWell that's something.
your statement.
But you can't believe in god of the bible and then claim he's >>>>>>>>> something entirely different depending on one's own imagination. >>>>>>>>>
almost anything.
Speaking of which... many religions have virgin births. You see people
in religions are *that* perfect.
"Like, wow, Ogg. You mean that no one stuck it in?"
"Oh, wow, man. Heavy..."
It's important to note that evolution does not attempt to explain the >>>> initiation of life. In that sense, it is compatible with divine
creation. Where the conflict comes in, I think, is that Genesis
*implies* that mankind has not changed since creation; or that Adam and >>>> Eve were protohumans. Were they Neanderthals, e.g.? Since (so far as I >>>> know) the bible makes no mention of whether the animals created at the >>>> same time have changed (evolved) over time, it then seems possible that >>>> they have and there is no conflict with the bible.
So Mankind is the only exception to evolution, under that interpretation.
What do you think, Ice? bmoore? skript? anyone?
Man has definitely evolved. Big difference between and the dumb beasts is consciousness, I think.
compatible with Genesis? E.g., was Australopithecus one of the animals
created *before* Adam and Eve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Phylogeny
I don't plan to drag this out, just to determine if the mechanism of
evolution *for humans* started with Adam and Eve as homo sapiens, that
Adam and Eve--and some of the earlier figures in the bible--were not
homo sapiens, that when the direct descendants of Adam and Eve struggled >> or contended with other named groups, these groups were not homo
sapiens, or that maybe the mechanism of evolution is not as we
understand it. I don't know the bible well enough to understand the
details of the initial presence of mankind. E.g., did *all* of humanity >> descend from Adam and Eve, or was it just the Hebrews. Where would the
Egyptians fit in, e.g.?
Fair enough.
I've sometimes played around with the idea that Genesis was metaphorical--not a new idea--and that the days of creation were
something along the lines of the geological time scale (GTS). I've never spent the time to consider, in detail, if this interpretation might be compatible with Genesis.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:49:37 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:meant to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:42:40 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.14:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were
theory that he didn't, is that what you're saying?No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later. Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe
view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.There is no proof outside of bible.Josephus & Tacitus 60 & 100 years after his alleged death.
So the answer is yes, you want to adhere to the silly fringe theory.
Even if a Jesus existed, he was no son of God and couldn't do miracles.
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you apparently
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:19:03 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:meant to be taken literally, and not the parts that weren't meant that way.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:49:37 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:42:40 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 1.14:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 5.10.2023 klo 0.45:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>> bmoore kirjoitti 4.10.2023 klo 23.46:
It's a good query: how literally should we take the Bible? Unfortunately, I choose to not respond to most of Iceberg's jerk and idiotic responses, so I will simply quote a preacher's comment that we should take the parts literally that were
theory that he didn't, is that what you're saying?No reputable historian of that time said so.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. >>>But remember, there was no Jesus! Josephus just said he existed once and duped every reputable historian into believing it.
And the bible was written decades after alleged death of Jesus.
Si basically they got nothing but belief. No facts.
You could as easily be talking about most of ancient history, since the methodology of history as we know it was developed later. Modern historical experts--not theologians--agree that Jesus existed, but you prefer to adhere to the silly fringe
view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.There is no proof outside of bible.Josephus & Tacitus 60 & 100 years after his alleged death.
So the answer is yes, you want to adhere to the silly fringe theory.
Even if a Jesus existed, he was no son of God and couldn't do miracles.
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you apparently
Pakistan, India, and Tibet) and left traces of his presence along the way. Apparently, there are quite a few monasteries in Tibet where ancient scrolls mention his visits. He was known in these areas as "Issa" (even now in local North Indian dialects, he'(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).Very well summarized. I am inclined to think the same way you do.
There is a conundrum here where Jesus is concerned. I have read from more than one old travel diary (written by different seekers from different countries) that Jesus (between the years of sixteen and twenty-nine) travelled East (into what is now
Obviously, there's no way to verify these claims, but I see no reason not to believe it, especially the Tibetan scrolls.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you apparently
of what went on.(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an account
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
I have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
I have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).
Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
Socrates
Fair enough, Ice.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).
Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
Yes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path as my
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives thewill of who or what receives those prayers.
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
Socrates
Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
And how would you know when you achieved it?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).
Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”Yes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path as my
Mark 9:24
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives thewill of who or what receives those prayers.
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for instance. Do you?
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path as myI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives thewill of who or what receives those prayers.
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for instance. Do you?
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Enlightenment is an illusion.And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I
wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point because
even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could all
be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both understanding
and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that someone most of
society would regard as insane might believe they have these as
well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a sociopathic con
man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better example. He appeared
to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he espoused.
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a space
ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
will of who or what receives those prayers.It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
will of who or what receives those prayers.I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.Enlightenment is an illusion.And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?
What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point because
even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could all
be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both understanding
and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that someone most of
society would regard as insane might believe they have these as
well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a sociopathic con
man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better example. He appeared
to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he espoused.
But isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based on
a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving
enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular moral framework, or "doing good works"?
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a space
ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Yes, it is my opinion only. As is the case with everything I write.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.Enlightenment is an illusion.And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ? What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:What would enlightenment mean? It's just a word. But I believe the concept is real, and spiritual. Jesus is/was enlightened, as are many others in our world, though not to the same extent as our Lord.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of yourself?
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for instance. Do you?
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Is there a *need* for enlightenment beyond survival skills that are
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of yourself?
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for instance. Do you?
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point because even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could all be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include bothunderstanding and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that someone most of society would regard as insane might believe they have these as well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a sociopathic con man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a space ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
will of who or what receives those prayers.Yeah. but I find it compelling. I do not think that all non-Christians are doomed. But I am a Christian. I have yet to resolve the contradictory last 2 statements.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
Praying to the higher power is good. What is God? What is Gaia?Serious question here: is it possible to view the super ego as a sort of "god"...a higher authority than day-to-day concerns?
Heh. Sagan was a great astrophysicist with dime store religious insight."The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.
Enlightenment is an illusion.And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".For me, excruciating boredom. And an indication that I have too little
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?
What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?Shakes, I have to face it: I'm just not a very imaginative person...
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
will of who or what receives those prayers.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that
you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
I quote the Bible and Socrates because the quotations resonate with me.I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that
you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:38:10 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:life spent in prison, the desire to butcher people and lead others to do so, be gratified by terrorizing others, and so on. Unless he had a well-hidden transcendent purpose, this appears to be the opposite of enlightenment. If you have read Zen Buddhist
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >> >> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point because even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could all
be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both understanding
and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that someone most of
society would regard as insane might believe they have these as
well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a sociopathic con
man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better example. He appeared to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he espoused.
But isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based onI don't think you will get much traction with the approach of being a deliberate goofball. Sure, it's an opinion that he was a sociopathic con man. *IMHO* an enlightened person would be unlikely to have continued down a road that led to most of his
a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular moral framework, or "doing good works"?
I'm also open to the idea that psychedelics may help one achieve enlightenment. This doesn't appear to be the case with Manson.
Danny Trejo, on the other hand, now maybe HE is enlightened.
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a space ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Yes, it is my opinion only. As is the case with everything I write.Not everything. Things like tennis stats are factual.
Until they are manipulated to support an opinion, that is. But I know that isn't your style. :)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
claim the ability to) impart enlightenment upon others by telling them what enlightenment has shown them. He presented them with a path with the understanding it would eventually bring about their own enlightenment if they followed it diligently.It may necessarily be so. This could be the difference between an enlightened person and a prophet...or a least a self-purported one offering "proof" in the form of physical "miracles" or predictions to verify the claim. The Buddha couldn't (and didn'tGracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that
you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
will of who or what receives those prayers.It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
I agree, and that's why I don't make a habit of using them in this way.I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that
you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
On 10/5/23 11:47 AM, bmoore wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>> Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.
As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
as my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answerYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this pathI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
the will of who or what receives those prayers.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that >> you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives
I think that's good, but if that's the case, they are personalI quote the Bible and Socrates because the quotations resonate with me.I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that >> you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
inspiration, and I would then interpret their use as intended to inspire readers, rather than to convince them of the validity of a position.
Is this how you see it?
I have no problem with any way you use it, b.
On 10/5/23 11:11 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Here's something I just thought of this AM.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:What would enlightenment mean? It's just a word. But I believe the concept is real, and spiritual. Jesus is/was enlightened, as are many others in our world, though not to the same extent as our Lord.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of yourself? >> Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for instance. Do you?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
As a *concept*, could followers of Christ drop the Old Testament?
I want to qualify that a bit: it may be that Jesus, in the New
Testament, directly states, or implies, that his followers utilize the
Old Testament, but if he had not said this, is there any need to refer
to it other than for simple curiosity about ancient Hebrew's
relationship to God?
So should Leviticus apply to modern Christians?
Are both the Old and New Testaments held to be equally binding on Christians? I would suspect variation between the Christian sects, but
in general, are they both of equal weight?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:53:53 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On 10/5/23 11:47 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.
As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
as my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answerYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this pathI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
the will of who or what receives those prayers.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that >>>> you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives
Pretty much. Definitely personal, inspiration, yes. Attempts to convince long abandoned, unless we are talking math :-)I think that's good, but if that's the case, they are personalI quote the Bible and Socrates because the quotations resonate with me.I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that >>>> you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
inspiration, and I would then interpret their use as intended to inspire
readers, rather than to convince them of the validity of a position.
Is this how you see it?
I have no problem with any way you use it, b.Thanks.
On 10/5/23 11:43 AM, Shakes wrote:
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.Like tolerance and diversity, it has a vague, but positive, connotation.
Ya can't go wrong publicly backing any of them...
;^)
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.For me, excruciating boredom. And an indication that I have too little
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?
to do right then.
What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?Shakes, I have to face it: I'm just not a very imaginative person...
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ? What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?Yes. Then the internal rambling or "monkey mind" comes to a halt, leaving the experience of just "being." We are usually separated from that early in childhood.
This also overlaps with descriptions of "ego death" under the influence of certain psychedelics. I haven't experienced that yet. There's still time. :)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".Not bad.
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.Yeah, gotta try to live in the present.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?Life.
What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?It's a good approach. Though maintaining that state of mind is very personal and very hard. Forget about other people to help you. Use them though, and be kind. Just a suggestion.
On 10/5/23 10:55 AM, bmoore wrote:
Yeah. but I find it compelling. I do not think that all non-Christians are doomed. But I am a Christian. I have yet to resolve the contradictory last 2 statements.
Praying to the higher power is good. What is God? What is Gaia?Serious question here: is it possible to view the super ego as a sort of "god"...a higher authority than day-to-day concerns?
Heh. Sagan was a great astrophysicist with dime store religious insight.--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wha's yo name, fool?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:38:10 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be
enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I
wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point
because even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could
all be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both
understanding and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that
someone most of society would regard as insane might believe they
have these as well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a
sociopathic con man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better
example. He appeared to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he
espoused.
But isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based
on a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving
enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular
moral framework, or "doing good works"?
I don't think you will get much traction with the approach of being a deliberate goofball. Sure, it's an opinion that he was a sociopathic
con man. *IMHO* an enlightened person would be unlikely to have
continued down a road that led to most of his life spent in prison,
the desire to butcher people and lead others to do so, be gratified by terrorizing others, and so on.
Unless he had a well-hidden transcendent purpose, this appears to be
the opposite of enlightenment. If you have read Zen Buddhist texts
that say otherwise. I'd be open to reading those.
I'm also open to the idea that psychedelics may help one achieve enlightenment. This doesn't appear to be the case with Manson.
Danny Trejo, on the other hand, now maybe HE is enlightened.
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a
space ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many
charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Yes, it is my opinion only. As is the case with everything I write.
Not everything. Things like tennis stats are factual. Until they are manipulated to support an opinion, that is. But I know that isn't your
style. :)
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:38:10 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >> >> >> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be
enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I
wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point
because even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could
all be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both
understanding and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that
someone most of society would regard as insane might believe they
have these as well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a
sociopathic con man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better
example. He appeared to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he
espoused.
But isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based
on a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving
enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular
moral framework, or "doing good works"?
I don't think you will get much traction with the approach of being a deliberate goofball. Sure, it's an opinion that he was a sociopathic
con man. *IMHO* an enlightened person would be unlikely to have
continued down a road that led to most of his life spent in prison,
Then you'd agree an enlightened person wouldn't have continued down a
road that led to him being tortured and left to die on a crucifix.
the desire to butcher people and lead others to do so, be gratified by terrorizing others, and so on.
We don't know for certain if Jesus didn't do those things, I mean most
of the history we have about him come from his cult followers. They
might have a vested interest in hiding his dastardly deeds, just like
they do with catholic priests and zen buddhists :) I'd say that he most certainly *did* lead others to butcher far more people than Manson. OK,
you can say that he didn't mean it, but if he were truly enlightened
maybe he should have known it could happen, particularly if he was the
son of God.
Unless he had a well-hidden transcendent purpose, this appears to beThe opposite of "enlightenment"? What's that? Again, why does it have
the opposite of enlightenment. If you have read Zen Buddhist texts
that say otherwise. I'd be open to reading those.
to compatible with any particular moral framework?
I'm also open to the idea that psychedelics may help one achieve enlightenment. This doesn't appear to be the case with Manson.
Danny Trejo, on the other hand, now maybe HE is enlightened.
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a
space ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many
charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Yes, it is my opinion only. As is the case with everything I write.
Not everything. Things like tennis stats are factual. Until they are manipulated to support an opinion, that is. But I know that isn't your style. :)
Even tennis stats can be subjective, like "unforced error".
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote::) Kind of like how a radio receiver can harness the radio waves from a transmitter out of thin air. :))
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.Not bad.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".
Yes, but "trying" is the problem. In my experience, this is not possible through will-power.Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.Yeah, gotta try to live in the present.
That's what I would love to find out.If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?Life.
Yes.Yes, it's very hard. But there are ways. And I believe someone like the Buddha (among many others) showed how it can be done. Easier said than done, though. And definitely not for everyone.What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?It's a good approach. Though maintaining that state of mind is very personal and very hard. Forget about other people to help you. Use them though, and be kind. Just a suggestion.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:24:22 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Very true. When we were children and were fortunate enough to be provided and cared for, we naturally lived in the present moment. Of course, it helped that we were free from responsibility.
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.Yes. Then the internal rambling or "monkey mind" comes to a halt, leaving the experience of just "being." We are usually separated from that early in childhood.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ? What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?
This also overlaps with descriptions of "ego death" under the influence of certain psychedelics. I haven't experienced that yet. There's still time. :)Ayahuasca ? :)) I know folks who tried that. Life changing, from what they said.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:40:48 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 11:43 AM, Shakes wrote:Exactly. A "sophisticated" buzz word.
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.Like tolerance and diversity, it has a vague, but positive, connotation.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
Ya can't go wrong publicly backing any of them...:)) But then, it might be that you will have a lot more to do since you will be thinking a lot less.
;^)
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".For me, excruciating boredom. And an indication that I have too little
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?
to do right then.
Then you have to try it. :)What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?Shakes, I have to face it: I'm just not a very imaginative person...
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:11:38 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Holy shit...
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:Not if he were an avatar who needed to undergo those things in order to purge humanity's sins and bring them salvation.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:38:10 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Then you'd agree an enlightened person wouldn't have continued down a
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:I don't think you will get much traction with the approach of being a
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:But isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the >>>>>>> method.
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
And how would you know when you achieved it?It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be
enlightenment.
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I
wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point
because even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could
all be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both
understanding and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that
someone most of society would regard as insane might believe they
have these as well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a
sociopathic con man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better
example. He appeared to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he
espoused.
on a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving
enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular
moral framework, or "doing good works"?
deliberate goofball. Sure, it's an opinion that he was a sociopathic
con man. *IMHO* an enlightened person would be unlikely to have
continued down a road that led to most of his life spent in prison,
road that led to him being tortured and left to die on a crucifix.
I don't personally believe his sacrifice did that, but it would nullify any Manson comparison, which is vastly overreaching in the first place.taught followers to love their enemies, healed a Roman who wounded him, etc. If he was an avatar, I would think it likely he was enlightened. Stories indicate he had some prophetic abilities. However, I don't assume enlightenment necessarily includes
Lots and lots of speculation. I agree that there's loads of stuff we don't know. But I don't recall anything in the gospels suggesting Jesus wanted his future followers to launch wars, persecute and torture millions of people, etc. The stories *say* hethe desire to butcher people and lead others to do so, be gratified byWe don't know for certain if Jesus didn't do those things, I mean most
terrorizing others, and so on.
of the history we have about him come from his cult followers. They
might have a vested interest in hiding his dastardly deeds, just like
they do with catholic priests and zen buddhists :) I'd say that he most
certainly *did* lead others to butcher far more people than Manson. OK,
you can say that he didn't mean it, but if he were truly enlightened
maybe he should have known it could happen, particularly if he was the
son of God.
OK, some aspects can be subjective. Most aren't.Unless he had a well-hidden transcendent purpose, this appears to beThe opposite of "enlightenment"? What's that? Again, why does it have
the opposite of enlightenment. If you have read Zen Buddhist texts
that say otherwise. I'd be open to reading those.
to compatible with any particular moral framework?
I'm also open to the idea that psychedelics may help one achieveEven tennis stats can be subjective, like "unforced error".
enlightenment. This doesn't appear to be the case with Manson.
Danny Trejo, on the other hand, now maybe HE is enlightened.
Not everything. Things like tennis stats are factual. Until they areOn the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* aYes, it is my opinion only. As is the case with everything I write.
space ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves theAnd that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading >>>>>> sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
manipulated to support an opinion, that is. But I know that isn't your
style. :)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:45:50 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 10:55 AM, bmoore wrote:What is super ego ?
Yeah. but I find it compelling. I do not think that all non-Christians are doomed. But I am a Christian. I have yet to resolve the contradictory last 2 statements.Serious question here: is it possible to view the super ego as a sort of
Praying to the higher power is good. What is God? What is Gaia?
"god"...a higher authority than day-to-day concerns?
I believe the result of enlightenment is the killing of the ego.Again, I lack imagination...
I used to find it fascinating to read accounts of NDE's. From various people who experienced that in a myriad of different ways - medical NDEs due to health issues, suicide attempts, drowning etc. - there are some common themes.
Heh. Sagan was a great astrophysicist with dime store religious insight.--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
Socrates
Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Fair enough, Ice.
That's about the best you can say to a smorgasbord of quasi-religious
phrases and words lashed together in the brain of a serial inebriate.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).
Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”Yes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path as my
Mark 9:24
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.will of who or what receives those prayers.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).
Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”Yes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path as
Mark 9:24
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.Yeah. but I find it compelling. I do not think that all non-Christians are doomed. But I am a Christian. I have yet to resolve the contradictory last 2 statements.
will of who or what receives those prayers.It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
Praying to the higher power is good. What is God? What is Gaia?
Heh. Sagan was a great astrophysicist with dime store religious insight."The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point becauseBut isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based on
even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could all
be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both understanding
and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that someone most of
society would regard as insane might believe they have these as
well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a sociopathic con
man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better example. He appeared
to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he espoused.
a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving
enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular moral framework, or "doing good works"?
On the other hand, I don't know for sure that there *wasn't* a space
ship behind that comet.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followersYes, it is my opinion only. As is the case with everything I write.
doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:43:49 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Exactly. The truth is unchanged irrespective of people misleading folks away from it.Enlightenment is an illusion.And that is an opinion based on a bogus premise. The fact that many charlatans claim to be enlightened and manage to find followers doesn't mean no one finds or has found enlightenment.
Like Bmoore said above "Enlightenment" has become a buzz word.
I think of it this way: it's a state where our mind can access the "collective superconscious".Not bad.
Our mind is continuously active/thinking. And most of it is either about the past - regrets, memories, incidents etc. or it's about the future - our future, our goals, kids (if we have them), health concerns etc. etc.Yeah, gotta try to live in the present.
If we are able to set aside all these thoughts about our past and our worries, dreams, desires about our future. What remains ?Life.
What will be the state of our mind then ? And if we can be in that state of mind throughout ?It's a good approach. Though maintaining that state of mind is very personal and very hard. Forget about other people to help you. Use them though, and be kind. Just a suggestion.
On 10/5/23 11:11 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Here's something I just thought of this AM.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:What would enlightenment mean? It's just a word. But I believe the concept is real, and spiritual. Jesus is/was enlightened, as are many others in our world, though not to the same extent as our Lord.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of yourself? >> Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for instance. Do you?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enlightenment.
Or the once-enlightened priest who loses his faith and leaves the
church.
My parents eventually quit going to the zen center out of disgust
because of a scandal involving one of the teachers/masters trading
sexual favors for "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is an illusion.
As a *concept*, could followers of Christ drop the Old Testament?
I want to qualify that a bit: it may be that Jesus, in the New
Testament, directly states, or implies, that his followers utilize the
Old Testament, but if he had not said this, is there any need to refer
to it other than for simple curiosity about ancient Hebrew's
relationship to God?
So should Leviticus apply to modern Christians?
Are both the Old and New Testaments held to be equally binding on Christians? I would suspect variation between the Christian sects, but
in general, are they both of equal weight?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
as my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answerYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this pathI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
the will of who or what receives those prayers.I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives
I really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?I quote the Bible and Socrates because the quotations resonate with me.
On 10/5/23 1:50 PM, bmoore wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:53:53 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 11:47 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.
As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
as my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answerYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this pathI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
the will of who or what receives those prayers.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST. >>>>
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that >>>> you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives
Pretty much. Definitely personal, inspiration, yes. Attempts to convince long abandoned, unless we are talking math :-)inspiration, and I would then interpret their use as intended to inspire >> readers, rather than to convince them of the validity of a position.I quote the Bible and Socrates because the quotations resonate with me. >> I think that's good, but if that's the case, they are personalI really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but >>>> one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that
you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
Is this how you see it?
In my view, everyone must do what they've got to do to get byI have no problem with any way you use it, b.Thanks.
consistently, or go mad or use intoxicants to simulate madness. The
first big trick is learning what you, yourself, will need. My
requirements are very prosaic.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:38:10 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >> >> >> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
When do you plan to become enlightened and by what method?
Possibly next week. I may use an online randomizer to choose the
method.
And how would you know when you achieved it?
It should be self-evident. Otherwise, it wouldn't be
enlightenment.
But how could you trust your own perceptions, particularly of
yourself? Charles Manson may see himself as enlightened, for
instance. Do you?
Charles Manson doesn't see himself as anything any longer--at least
not in the realm we are familiar with. :)
And obviously I don't believe I've found enlightenment. Otherwise I
wouldn't be speculating about it here.
Concerning the stuff about perceptions, that's a tricky point
because even experts on consciousness can't definitively say what
consciousness is. Simulation hypothesis may be valid, or we could
all be in a snow globe. Enlightenment should include both
understanding and a sense of certainty. But I acknowledge that
someone most of society would regard as insane might believe they
have these as well. Manson is a bad example IMO because he was a
sociopathic con man. Someone like Marshall Applewhite is a better
example. He appeared to fully believe the Heaven's Gate stuff he
espoused.
But isn't it just an "opinion" that he's a sociopathic con man, based
on a moral framework that you've accepted and bought in to? In any
case, what prevents a sociopathic con man from also achieving
enlightenment? Does enlightenment require living within a particular
moral framework, or "doing good works"?
I don't think you will get much traction with the approach of being a deliberate goofball. Sure, it's an opinion that he was a sociopathicThen you'd agree an enlightened person wouldn't have continued down a
con man. *IMHO* an enlightened person would be unlikely to have
continued down a road that led to most of his life spent in prison,
road that led to him being tortured and left to die on a crucifix.
the desire to butcher people and lead others to do so, be gratified by terrorizing others, and so on.We don't know for certain if Jesus didn't do those things, I mean most
of the history we have about him come from his cult followers. They
might have a vested interest in hiding his dastardly deeds, just like
they do with catholic priests and zen buddhists :) I'd say that he most certainly *did* lead others to butcher far more people than Manson. OK,
you can say that he didn't mean it, but if he were truly enlightened
maybe he should have known it could happen, particularly if he was the
son of God.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 17:52:46 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God?
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
will of who or what receives those prayers.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives the
you're obviously scared to try praying in case it changes you or you encounter God. Did you miss I used to like all the Buddhist stuff? Meditation is self-contained, that the whole problem/flaw with it, you're expecting answers from yourself, it notgoing to happen.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 22:27:00 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On 10/5/23 1:50 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:53:53 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/5/23 11:47 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>> On 10/5/23 9:52 AM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.
As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
as my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answerYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this pathI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
the will of who or what receives those prayers.Gracchus, all this is good discussion: it's why I come here to RST. >>>>>>
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
Here's a divergent thought regarding "enlightenment", in the sense that >>>>>> you're using it, above.
Do you feel that this sort of enlightenment is subjective. On
reflection, I think that it is.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives
that's a recipe for selfishness though,In my view, everyone must do what they've got to do to get byPretty much. Definitely personal, inspiration, yes. Attempts to convince long abandoned, unless we are talking math :-)inspiration, and I would then interpret their use as intended to inspire >>>> readers, rather than to convince them of the validity of a position.I quote the Bible and Socrates because the quotations resonate with me. >>>> I think that's good, but if that's the case, they are personalI really shy away from quoting people because in doing so, one is but >>>>>> one short step from argument to authority, which I tend to reject
"The unexamined life is not worth living"Ah, but who is Socrates compared to Carl Sagan?
Socrates
without added independent support. It is often used when the
interlocutor has no independent evidence.
It can/should be used simply as an attribution--letting people know that >>>>>> you're not claiming the idea as your own.
What do you think?
Is this how you see it?
I have no problem with any way you use it, b.Thanks.
consistently, or go mad or use intoxicants to simulate madness. The
first big trick is learning what you, yourself, will need. My
requirements are very prosaic.
what you need isn't much - just food and water, but tons of people like Pelle demand their daily extra-soy marshmellow latte!
On 10/6/23 1:06 AM, The Iceberg wrote:apparently view humanity as a bunch of kinda smart primates with senses that tell us most of the truths we need to know while our awesome 21st-century scientific instruments and Richard Dawkins fill in the rest.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 17:52:46 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:05:44 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 00:19:03 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
Now we get to the core issues. Better to stake out a position here than with "Jesus didn't exist." Because when it comes down to it, that is irrelevant.As I see it, it comes down to a few questions:
(1) Is there or was there ever such thing as an "avatar"? (in the traditional sense, not the James Cameron blue kind)
If you don't believe there is, then the existence of Jesus doesn't matter, because he would have just been some dude, even if a very charismatic one with a nice robe. I assume this is where you would stop the questioning process, since you
account of what went on.no need to be sorry, it your choice/journey, would just say well you've never prayed to him and asked him those questions, also you've never read the new testament, my tip is try praying and try reading the book of Matthew, it quite good as an
(2) If avatars are possible, was Jesus one?
Any evidence for this comes from the Bible, with stories of miraculous feats performed. Unless you accept these stories on faith, then it's impossible to know if Jesus was an avatar even if you believe they are possible.
(3) If Jesus was an avatar, was he also the incarnate Son of God? >>>>>>
No reason to believe this unless you've read the Bible and taken the necessary "leap of faith."
(4) Did Jesus die for humanity's sins and become, in effect, a continuing manifestation of the biblical God himself, and our sole path to spiritual salvation?
Same as the answer to question #3, with a higher bar to clear since ancient religious authorities carefully decided in the centuries after Jesus's death which sources were canonical and which were heretical.
My own view allows the possibility of avatars and that Jesus may have been one. So far, I have found no reason to answer yes on #3 and #4 (sorry, Iceberg).
my own. So there's no incentive for me to do as Iceberg suggests, and pray for the inner power to believe it. If you ask your unconscious for confirmation of something--or the collective unconscious, for that matter--you are likely to get the answer youYes, I agree. But your comments and Iceberg's apply more to someone with the *desire* to take a particular leap of faith and just needs that last push to do it. I don't discount Christian belief systems, nor do I feel the need to choose this path asI have read the New Testament, I just don't take it as gospel (so to speak).Doubt is something we all encounter if we are at all introspective; I don't believe anyone who is sure and claims to have no doubt at all.
“I believe; help my unbelief”
Mark 9:24
the will of who or what receives those prayers.
I tend to believe the Christian story may be ONE path to enlightenment, whether or not it is all factual. But I don't think I will ever believe it is the SOLE path, as most mainstream lines of Christian thought demand.
It's also interesting how Iceberg endorses prayer but is suspicious of meditation as used in Buddhist practice, IIRC. It seems to me that both are legitimate forms of truth-seeking except prayer may come with an embedded bias if one pre-conceives
going to happen.you're obviously scared to try praying in case it changes you or you encounter God. Did you miss I used to like all the Buddhist stuff? Meditation is self-contained, that the whole problem/flaw with it, you're expecting answers from yourself, it not
Here's a serious question that someone like me, from an areligious background, no training of any kind, has troubles with: why does God
require prayer and worship?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:54:01 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |
