G.o.d (((((((((athiest))))))))))
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: MagicNakor
But it seems that "unbeleiving" is for the illiterate.
:ninja:
Posted by: sabbath
If believing in God, helps you, then you should believe. Nothing wrong with that.
I think that religion is a way to control and guide the masses, but what the hell, that's just my opnion...
Edit- Small syntax error, fixed that
Posted by: J'Pol
Being a catholic to trade I love it when people say that religion is used to control the masses.
Posted by: sabbath
Originally posted by JPaul@6 September 2003 - 11:40
Being a catholic to trade I love it when people say that religion is used to control the masses.
Thanks, it's not mine, heard it from someone else
Posted by: chalice
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
Posted by: sabbath
Originally posted by chalice@6 September 2003 - 12:01
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
I don't see anyone rebelling. Though the comment is so right
Posted by: ilw
the comment about controlling the masses may possibly have come from quote by Napoleon Bonaparte
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Posted by: Biggles
I thought the "masses" quote came from Marx and Engels. ('Manifesto' I think)
However, the French revolutionaries were very anti religion too. The custom of senior Church posts only going to landed aristocracy had a little to do with that. It was almost impossible to have a career in the Church in 18th century France without the right family connections.
It was little surprise that the Church heirarchy supported the aristocracy - they were simply supporting their Dads and brothers.
Posted by: chalice
"Religion is the opium of the masses" is indeed from The Communist Manifesto.
Always a good one to parody.
Posted by: i_have_a.d.d.
dam i was gone 4 a week and this is my fave topic i ever posted i even got an enourmous amount of replies and viewers :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
hope i can read all this soon..
Posted by: balamm
:wacko: :wacko:
Posted by: i_have_a.d.d.
hehe
Posted by: thewizeard
Originally posted by i_have_a.d.d.@6 September 2003 - 17:27
dam i was gone 4 a week and this is my fave topic i ever posted i even got an enourmous amount of replies and viewers :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
hope i can read all this soon..
It is your duty to read and reply to each and everyone!
Posted by: bigboab
'Dejavu'? I think I have seen that some place before. HMmm :P
Posted by: bigboab
Eureka!
DÉJÀ VU:- A momentary infinitesimal lag in the operation of two coactive sensory nerve centres that commonly functioned simultaneously. (JOSEPH HELLER)
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by bigboab@7 September 2003 - 00:09
Eureka!
DÉJÀ VU:- A momentary infinitesimal lag in the operation of two coactive sensory nerve centres that commonly functioned simultaneously. (JOSEPH HELLER)
You're damned if you think it, Boab, and damned if you don't.
As Josef Heller might have said..if he was pissed.
Posted by: bigboab
quote "Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals"
Thats poison Chalice! :rolleyes:
Posted by: Biggles
I thought opium was the opium of the intellectuals (Sherlock Holmes) :blink:
Posted by: sabbath
If only Marx was alive, you guys and girls... :huh:
Posted by: Neil__
I would like someone to answer a question and explain a paradox and I will use Christianity for example only.
I do not believe in God.
The Christians intimate that failure to believe in their God condemnes me to Hell.
But, If I don't believe in any God then Hell can't exist either.
So My question is.
Where will I burn Exactly?
Neil.
Posted by: ilw
you don't have to believe in hell for it to exist. Just like you don't have to believe in black holes for them to exist
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by Neil__@13 September 2003 - 22:39
I would like someone to answer a question and explain a paradox and I will use Christianity for example only.
I do not believe in God.
The Christians intimate that failure to believe in their God condemnes me to Hell.
But, If I don't believe in any God then Hell can't exist either.
So My question is.
Where will I burn Exactly?
Neil.
In the lounge. :)
Posted by: ilw
lol
what i want to know is, could god create another god?
Posted by: imnotanaddict
Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation
Special commentary from AFA chairman Don Wildmon
The issue isn't a granite stone with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it. Never has been. The issue is much more diverse and important than a piece of stone.
The issue was best stated by none other than Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal. Thompson said the central, most important issue was this: "Can the state acknowledge God?"
After asking the question, he went on to answer it. "No."
That is the issue. Lest we fail to understand what has occurred here, let me explain. A single, lower-court federal judge has bluntly told every American that America is now officially an atheist nation.
In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out over 225 years of American history and law. In one swift stroke of the pen, he has instituted a new form of law based on what he wants it to be. Rex has become lex. He wears a black robe and he says he is the law.
Go back and read the First Amendment, the one Judge Thompson destroyed in the name of preserving it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion. But what Congress refused to do, indeed because Congress refused to do it, Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.
Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state. The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done. He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion -- unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.
From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. Law will become what any person wearing a black robe and sitting in court desires it to be. The First Amendment has been ripped apart in the name of upholding it. Orwell's 1984 has arrived.
No, you will not notice any drastic changes immediately. There is still a remnant left in the hearts and minds of the current citizenry. But when that remnant dies out, those who come after us will see a big difference.
The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism. That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start. It was the atheist Santayana who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 22:47
lol
what i want to know is, could god create another god?
That's a good one.
And if he did, who would win at chess?
Posted by: titey
Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 17:45
you don't have to believe in hell for it to exist. Just like you don't have to believe in black holes for them to exist
I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists?
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by titey+13 September 2003 - 16:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 13 September 2003 - 16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@13 September 2003 - 17:45
you don't have to believe in hell for it to exist. Just like you don't have to believe in black holes for them to exist
I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists? [/b][/quote]
No.
But you won't be getting any socks on Christmas morning.
Posted by: ilw
what do you mean you don't believe in santa? How else would you get presents to everyone at christmas time :blink:
They don't just magically appear you know.
Posted by: titey
Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 18:21
They don't just magically appear you know.
http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/yes.gif Of course they do.... with the aid of Chinese leprchauns! :D
Posted by: Biggles
Iamnotanaddict
Don't you think you are reading rather too much into the ruling of the judge?
What was the provenance of the stone and where was it situated?
If the primary feature of the stone was Christian text, was it placed in a Christian place of worship or was it in a public place designed to serve the needs of all creeds and colours?
If it was the latter has the judge not upheld your constitution by maintaining a separation of state and church - a primary feature of your political system?
I think rather than an article of faith in atheism it was possibly an attempt to prevent sectarianism - the scourge of many a state.
Perhaps if the stone is for a public place, it could be recarved with edicts of all faiths - from the Native Americans through the faiths of the Torah and on to Bhuddist, Hindu, New Age faiths and Humanism - thus showing that all faiths are equal under the constitution and the law.
However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.
Posted by: ilw
Hmm communist leprechauns giving away presents, somethings afoot. I wonder what stage 2 will be?
Posted by: titey
Socialist trolls giving away free condoms.... of course! http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/LOL.gif
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 23:43
Hmm communist leprechauns giving away presents, somethings afoot. I wonder what stage 2 will be?
The Eastern Bunny.
Posted by: ilw
LMAO
hey titey, I just noticed you've regressed to complete noob status:
Posts : 0
What happened??
I'm starting to feel a bit guilty, I get the impression that somewhere we wandered http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/offtopic.gif
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 16:40
However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.
Biggles,
The stone was situated in a courthouse.
This is much ado about nothing.
Strangely, the same people who are so concerned about America becoming Godless seem completely unconcerned about Bush/Rumsfield's push to strip away personal freedoms via the Patriot Act.
Posted by: titey
Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 18:55
I get the impression that somewhere we wandered http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/offtopic.gif
Gee, that'd be a first! :rolleyes: http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/ROFL.gif
Posted by: balamm
Originally posted by titey@13 September 2003 - 16:12
I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists?
When enough people believe, yes he does. In spirit at least. And isn't the spirit what this discussion is based on?
Posted by: ilw
what about if the people aren't old enough to vote, does it still count?
Posted by: titey
Originally posted by balamm+13 September 2003 - 19:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm @ 13 September 2003 - 19:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-titey@13 September 2003 - 16:12
I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists?
When enough people believe, yes he does. In spirit at least. And isn't the spirit what this discussion is based on? [/b][/quote]
Thank you Virginia.... I had lost track of the true meaning of this thread. :blink:
Posted by: balamm
Just for you titey >>
santa (http://nogen.ecards.hallmark.com/Website/Images/Greetings/nfz1482/nfz1482.swf)
Or
xmastest (http://members.shaw.ca/userkey/xmastest.htm)
Posted by: ilw
lol I like the jazz one :lol:
Posted by: Biggles
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 17:56
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
You are not the only one who is confused, Biggles.
It was a judge who wanted to keep the stone there. In fact he's the one who commissioned/paid for it to begin with.
In the deep South this is a good way to get votes.
Now he gets to campaign on his platform of "keeping God in America" or some such bushwa.
We ARE an odd country...
Posted by: imnotanaddict
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 23:40
Iamnotanaddict
Don't you think you are reading rather too much into the ruling of the judge?
What was the provenance of the stone and where was it situated?
If the primary feature of the stone was Christian text, was it placed in a Christian place of worship or was it in a public place designed to serve the needs of all creeds and colours?
If it was the latter has the judge not upheld your constitution by maintaining a separation of state and church - a primary feature of your political system?
I think rather than an article of faith in atheism it was possibly an attempt to prevent sectarianism - the scourge of many a state.
Perhaps if the stone is for a public place, it could be recarved with edicts of all faiths - from the Native Americans through the faiths of the Torah and on to Bhuddist, Hindu, New Age faiths and Humanism - thus showing that all faiths are equal under the constitution and the law.
However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.
Usually when I post something pertaining to a topic I also provide the link or address where I got it. This time, this article was sent to me by a friend that usually sends a lot of jokes. I should have mentioned this was not written by
me. Because this is a topic that has had some attention I posted it because its
semi-related. I don't mean to imply that I beleive in or even agree sometimes
with everything I post but think its good to have diversified views and opinions.
Or just something else to think about. I have many faults but plagiarism is not
one of them. oops.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Biggles@14 September 2003 - 01:56
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.*
Curious one though.
Biggles,
You have the name of a circus clown, but your posts are anything but silly. You have a very concise way of jumping through the hoops to the actual issue and explaining your view point without resorting to distortion, emotive language or personal insults.
As for your 2 posts on this thread, I would add:
"Yeah, what he said".
Clocker, I do not believe that judges are elected, but rather appointed. Judges are selected as favors to people who have supported a candidate. You don't even need a highschool diploma to be a judge, you simply need to go to "judge school" after your appointment.
Judges are not retained for quality of work, but rather if you buddy is re-elected . New party, new judges. There is no quality control in place and only the most aggregious are removed to save further embarassment.
Think about the next time you call that judge "your honor".
Posted by: hobbes
I also wonder why we put our hand on the Bible when taking oath in a courtroom. If I do not abide by the Bible, am I obliged to tell the truth?
I personally think that we should all swear on our mothers' grave and if she is not dead, we should kill her, then swear on it, to show the court how seriously we take this honesty thing.
Posted by: clocker
Hobbes,
I am amazed.
Of course judges are elected. At least in some states.
Bullsh*t link to prove point... (http://www.electionmagic.com/archives/mi/2000/novgen/A03results/A0300301sum.htm#01Ju)
I agree with you on Mr. Biggles.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by clocker@14 September 2003 - 05:03
Hobbes,
I am amazed.
Of course judges are elected. At least in some states.
Bullsh*t link to prove point... (http://www.electionmagic.com/archives/mi/2000/novgen/A03results/A0300301sum.htm#01Ju)
I agree with you on Mr. Biggles.
I guess my extrapolation was wrong. My information came to me from a friend who is an appointed Judge in the city of St. Louis.
I was a little stunned at her decription of the system. I am at least reassured that at higher levels of Judicial authority or in different states it is not such a back scratching experience.
But doesn't the President get to appoint people to the Supreme Court if a vacancy arises?
Posted by: Evil Gemini
How can ppl believe in a religion when the bibles being changed all the time ? Like not long ago this gay preist decided that he will write his own version of the bible to suit him.
Imagine how much times this has happened to the bibles in different religions like WTF!!
The best religion to believe in is science because its all based on facts and thats the real truth.
If you asked me if i believe in a God i will have to say no but thats my opinion im not going to bash ppls beliefs.
If there is any hard core evidance then i might believe in god.
If there really is a god i am pissed of at him because of all the shit that is going on in the world. Like look at all this shit going on with the terrorists.
Why doesnt he come down and tell everyone whats the propper way to worship him and stop all this shit whats going on.
Posted by: clocker
But doesn't the President get to appoint people to the Supreme Court if a vacancy arises?
Of course.
Not all judges are elected, in fact I think that this is more common at the lower levels.
Posted by: fallenknight308
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
*I'm off to see the wizard, the wonderfull wizard of oz........................ :ph34r:
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by fallenknight308@16 September 2003 - 04:48
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
*I'm off to see the wizard, the wonderfull wizard of oz........................ :ph34r:
The only thing I cannot brush aside is that "we are here". That is some shit.
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by fallenknight308@15 September 2003 - 20:48
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
What?
You don't believe in serendipity?
BTW, I cannot see the unbrushasideable (huh?) fact in your post...
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 19:56
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
Here is addenda to the debate on the Alabama/Roy Moore issue.
1-The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Alabama does not have a congress; the historical fact is that the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions on the federal government.
If the states wished to have a state religion, they are free to do so.
It was not Judge Moore's intent to do so.
2-No rational person could conclude this representation of the Ten Commandments constitutes the establishment of a religion, no matter that they are displayed in the same quarters as the Alabama Supreme Court.
3-One of the "secular" onlooker/protesters was heard to say, "Well, what if someone wanted to put a monument to the Torah in the courthouse?"
The poor boob wasn't aware the Ten Commandments are from the Torah.
They have nothing to do with Christianity per se; they are merely basic rules of good behavior which prohibit murder, perjury, adultery, and theft, and are the moral basis of our laws, and the laws of most other countries as well.
It seems the whole debate is just a wee bit canted, at least as it pertains to the role of government in such affairs.
The government cannot bestow rights; anything the government gives, it can likewise take away.
A right is defined as something which cannot justly be taken away.
The Founding Fathers recognized that rights are God-given, and so structured the government to protect those rights-as granted by God.
It is not correct to refer to "constitutional rights", as the Constitution does not give anyone any rights; it exists solely to forfend government from the abridgement of the rights granted by "You-Know-Who" ;)
Posted by: fallenknight308
Originally posted by clocker+15 September 2003 - 20:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 15 September 2003 - 20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fallenknight308@15 September 2003 - 20:48
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
What?
You don't believe in serendipity?
BTW, I cannot see the unbrushasideable (huh?) fact in your post... [/b][/quote]
Touch'e
Wow, every one here still has a thing about increasing their post count <_<
(And don't bother pointing out the "irony" of my rebuttal, or the fact I have
trouble spelling, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this board ;) )
Posted by: MagicNakor
Or perhaps the fact that posts here don't count, as it is, alas, a sub-section of the Lounge?
:ninja:
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
Whether this post was a joke or not, I'm not sure, but, in my opinion, anyone who believes in gods or higher intelligences, must have a screw loose.
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
:)
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by hobbes@14 September 2003 - 04:19
I also wonder why we put our hand on the Bible when taking oath in a courtroom. If I do not abide by the Bible, am I obliged to tell the truth?
Where I come from one can take an oath, on the holy book of your own choice, be it bible, koran or whatever.
Conversely, someone who has no religious religious beliefs can chose to affirm.
A friend of mine was seen to affirm on one occasion. Not because he was not religious. He just didn't like the particular version of the bible that was available. He decided to point this out may be offensive to others.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@16 September 2003 - 09:06
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
Whether this post was a joke or not, I'm not sure, but, in my opinion, anyone who believes in gods or higher intelligences, must have a screw loose.
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
:)
No religion is for people who need to believe that there is something better than the reality before us. Life for most people sucks. Even those who appear to have it all, are often miserable.
The problem with religion is that you have faith in them to receive the desired effect of alleviating pain. I, personally, sit here in my agnostic world trying to assemble my own answer.
Again, Billy your humility and general ebullient style makes this another other post to treasure. :D
any to another
Posted by: Billy_Dean
BD
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
Hobbes
No religion is for people who need to believe that there is something better than the reality before us. Life for most people sucks. Even those who appear to have it all, are often miserable.
So you agree with me then?
Hobbes
Again, Billy your humility and general ebullient style makes this any other post to treasure
Why do I need humility when talking about religions that tell people like you and I that we are going to burn in hell?
B)
Posted by: cowswithguns
IMO Religion may give some people a false sense of strength and promise of eternal life but I'm one who believes that it has more to answer for than it may give.
It perpetuates itself in fear and is the cause of a great proportion of the world's discontent.
As far as I'm concerned you can shove it.
Posted by: hobbes
BD
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
So you agree with me then?
I don't know, maybe. I'm not sure what believing in reality is exactly. I believe I am sitting in a chair, but how does this belief explain initial creation? Reality is a perception which is limited by our crude senses. We have learned from animals, radioactive materials and electronics that huge amounts of "reality" are imperceptable to us. We have captured some of this information with technology, but how much more is out there of which we have no clue. So it is apparent that alot more is going on than we can perceive, there is a existence which is beyond our perceptions (what we call "reality"). The basic question everyone wants answered is why is there mass, space and time. How can we explain it? How did we get here?
Hobbes
Again, Billy your humility and general ebullient style makes this any other post to treasure
Why do I need humility when talking about religions that tell people like you and I that we are going to burn in hell?
Just a little inside barb. You have so many nice comments about American arrogance, I figured you would be the poster child of Australian modesty. Just letting you get a little insight into how you come across.
What if they are right? Is it possible. A humble man might consider the possibility. Well, I don't think they are right either, but no need to be nasty about it, eh? Just ruffle their hair and send them off for icecream.
I just noticed the signature by CWG's- you fellows ARE a modest lot. ;)
Posted by: Biggles
J2K4
I profess no great knowledge on US Constitutional affairs. Indeed I think I am right in saying that it is area of rich pickings for lawyers as they weave their own peculiar brand of magic in trying to develop new and interesting interpretations.
I also don't know much about the lump of rock - other than it sounded quite large and heavy (clearly not designed to hang in a tastefully discrete frame :) )
I think ultimately in any such situation, it is the intent of the individual rather than the act itself. The judge in question is unknown in these parts and consequently I can pass no comment with regards his intent. Those local are much better placed to examine the dynamics of the situation.
Much more interesting is the concept of "The Rights of Man". Although I am sure the founding fathers had only the highest motives I doubt whether any social edifice can truly defy the ill-intended. But then again, some safeguards are better than none.
I would be interested in what people think their rights are, and are they safeguarded or not? Without being too boring perhaps we could limit it to essential rights (is the right to party essential? ... perhaps. :rolleyes: )
I fear that although almost all religions do have a set of moral codes and, by and large, the basic tenets of these codes are the same, a theocracy is not a happy place to be. Perhaps I am being constricted by my own cultural boundaries, but I think I prefer a liberal democracy to any other form government. Of course, liberal democracies are messy and largely ill-disciplined and dis-organised. :) but what better way to keep at bay those who "know" what is best for us? Not the most visionary political standpoint I know. I think rather it is one borne out of seeing government in action over the years.
Sorry this has strayed off topic a little. The Rights of Man and God is there a link? :blink:
PS Thank you for your kind words Hobbes and Clocker - I never thought of Biggles as a clown before but it has a certain fit even if you are familiar with the books.
Posted by: chalice
I never thought of Biggles as a clown, wot, wot?
Chocks away, old Bean.
Posted by: Biggles
Well.... when you put it like that :D
It all seemed like daring do when I was 12
Posted by: MagicNakor
Now here's a question posed by a French philosopher; unfortunately, I cannot remember his name.
A man slept. And while he slept, he dreamt. In his dream, he went to Paradise. While in Paradise, he picked a flower. When he awoke, the flower was on his pillow.
Note: If you want, substitute Paradise for Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, and so on. He chose Paradise so that every religion was covered. ;)
:ninja:
Posted by: Biggles
I am intrigued.
What was the question?
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 September 2003 - 17:07
Now here's a question posed by a French philosopher; unfortunately, I cannot remember his name.
A man slept. And while he slept, he dreamt. In his dream, he went to Paradise. While in Paradise, he picked a flower. When he awoke, the flower was on his pillow.
Note: If you want, substitute Paradise for Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, and so on. He chose Paradise so that every religion was covered. ;)
:ninja:
OK.
I follow the set-up, but what is the question?
Is this some sort of Zen thing?
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by MagicNakor@17 September 2003 - 01:07
Now here's a question posed by a French philosopher; unfortunately, I cannot remember his name.
A man slept. And while he slept, he dreamt. In his dream, he went to Paradise. While in Paradise, he picked a flower. When he awoke, the flower was on his pillow.
Note: If you want, substitute Paradise for Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, and so on. He chose Paradise so that every religion was covered. ;)
:ninja:
Sleepwalker, obviously. I do it myself. Flowers are everywhere. I won't tell you what I woke up with the night I dreamt of Hell.
Since he was asleep, he probably should have awoken with the flower clutched in his hand. Maybe a friend placed the flower next to him. He could smell the aroma and his mind incorporated it into the dream.
Don't most questions come with a "?", somewhere?
Posted by: MagicNakor
Okay, I goofed. I forgot the question. ;) It's being paraphrased, though, since I don't remember it exactly.
How would you live, knowing that Paradise does exist, and that it is possible to attain?
Of course, you don't know what'll let you in, or keep you out...
It's not really a Zen thing - someone I know called this one "a mindfuck." ;)
However, there is a Zen one that was before this one in the conversation - Enlightenment is looking at the sun and realising that it is round.
:ninja:
Posted by: chalice
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
Posted by: clocker
So if you look at the Sun and realize that you've gone blind, then you've somehow missed the point?
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by chalice@16 September 2003 - 18:07
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
Only if you buy into #4, Chalice.
Missing out on a lifetime of hot, monkey sex should count as something...
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by clocker+17 September 2003 - 01:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 September 2003 - 01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@16 September 2003 - 18:07
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
Only if you buy into #4, Chalice.
Missing out on a lifetime of hot, monkey sex should count as something... [/b][/quote]
lol, Clocker, I've never backed a winner in my life.
*edit* And you're right, ofcourse. A lifetime of hot monkey sex is better than an eternity remembering it.
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by chalice@16 September 2003 - 18:14
lol, Clocker, I've never backed a winner in my life.
*edit* And you're right, ofcourse. A lifetime of hot monkey sex is better than an eternity remembering it.
http://www.beast-sex.net/pics/ud-chimp007b.jpg
Hop on the bandwagon, Chalice!
It may not be too late.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by chalice@17 September 2003 - 02:07
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
Which God, Pascalle? There are thousands of religions to chose from and many require specific acts and beliefs which are contrary to anothers'.
And are you asking me to actually believe in God or just follow the teachings of the "right" religion.
My mind does not have the ability to have "faith". I think "faith", like nationalism, like loyalty, is one of those things which are placed in the hardwiring of little children and becomes permanent when the mold has set. Nobody gave me this seed of "faith". I will always have doubts.
So Pascalle is really asking people to pretend they believe, which is a farce. To me religion is not percentages. You either have full faith or you don't. Any God who requires belief can spot a phony.
I just use my own sense of right and wrong to guide me and assume that if there is a God, he will appreciate my efforts and reward me.
No loving God would banish me to hell for eternity for a life that is just a nanosecond. If he isn't loving, then fuck him, you're doomed no matter what you do.
Edit: Here I am trying to save our immortal souls and Clocker is off f8cking monkeys.
Posted by: MagicNakor
Originally posted by clocker@17 September 2003 - 02:09
So if you look at the Sun and realize that you've gone blind, then you've somehow missed the point?
Well, I asked that too. ;) Then I was told that it'd work for the moon, if I was so inclined.
However, you can look at the sun for a short period of time. I've done it, and I'm not blind. :)
:ninja:
Posted by: chalice
I agree with you totally, Hobbes.
My mind cannot or will not accept anything beyond my own sphere.
Pascalle was obviously referring to the Christian set of beliefs but it is, in the main, applicable to all organised religions. To play the percentage, for a lot of people, is acceptable because it fills the void.
Religion, like politics, is learned. Sometimes it is disregarded for less defined "truths" and the whole scenario starts up all over again.
It is a wise man who knows he knows nothing.
Posted by: clocker
MN,
I'm running right out to the library and getting Zen for Dummies...
I'd like to see if it's possible to wake up with Renee Zellweger next to me.
Posted by: chalice
And just to qualify, I subscribe to neither nationalism nor loyalism.
I am not a catholic (big or small "c") nor a protestant.
Hardwiring can be re-wired.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by chalice@17 September 2003 - 02:54
And just to qualify, I subscribe to neither nationalism nor loyalism.
I am not a catholic (big or small "c") nor a protestant.
Hardwiring can be re-wired.
Let me qualify that, I can see that I need to distill politics out of these terms.
If someone asks me where I am from, I say St. Louis, but I haven't actually lived there for 15 years. St. Louis is where my childhood was and what I identify as homebase. It doesn't matter how long I live in Texas, I will still feel like a visitor. Same with nationalism. I will always consider myself American, no matter where I live. So I want to separate out that I mean "identify with" and not "will forever blindly defend or follow". Hope that is clearer.
For myself, I followed the football Cardinals for many years, since I can remember actually. The team was terrible, but my parents, friends and I would get together every weekend and watch the game. We would be losing 31-0 in the 4th quarter and we were all sure that this week, we would come back and win. These are the delusional thoughts of sports fans about their hometeams.
Needless to say the owner moved the Cardinals to Arizona and St. Louis got a new team, the Rams. Although they play in St. Louis and have won the Superbowl, I only objectively root for them. They are in St. Louis, therefore they are my team. The passion just isn't there. This team is not what formed me, they are inposters. As for the Cardinals, I hate them. Rooting for them would be like rooting for your cheating lying ex-wife.
In fact, I live in San Antonio, Texas now. This year the Spurs won the title, I could careless. Meanwhile, in the college tournament, I was dying a little with every basket scored against my college team.
I hope people have their own sports analogies as it will make my point easier to comprehend. I bet you do, as you take your version of football quite seriously. When you move, do you switch team loyalty?
So by nationalism and loyalty I meant to stress your identification with a certain place or country or simply the "hometeam". I did not want to get into the political aspects of these words. You can take a man out of a country, but you cannot take the country out of the man.
Posted by: chalice
Just take the man out of the country, Hobbes, that's enough for me.
I see your point but sporting analogies fall short when it comes to religious endoctrination. I was raised in a strict catholic environment and, I agree, this resonates through my everyday life. I envy your objectivity but this has never been made available to me.
Even now, as an adult, in trying to educate my children, my beliefs are compromised at every turn. There is no educational structure where I live where a child can be taught without the old, rigid rules of religious conformity. My son has entered his third year of primary school (his first communion year) and the faeces will hit the fan when the school finds out that he has never been baptised. I fear for him. Really.
He is given ridiculous catacisms to recite and I must tow the line so as not to contradict whatever truisms those teachers impart upon him. There is no escape from it, not here anyway. I feel irreversible harm is being done to him daily and I must smile and nod.
I count myself lucky to have broken conditioning to some degree but catholic morals cast long shadows and what I hope are independent views are probably only echoes of contempt for being misled.
Posted by: hobbes
Yes, you have those Catholic guilts embedded in your wiring. Even if you can logically state that you need not feel guilty for "x" or "y", you feel guilty anyway (Is that what you meant when referring to "casting long shadows").
I endured many months of this dating the daughter of a former nun. Their living room was like a gift shop of crosses. Anything she enjoyed was considered a source of shame, and sex was just one of many items on that list.
You cannot never erase the effect your religious upbringing has imprinted on you, just like the cigarette smoker can never forget what that first cigarette tasted like. Oh, but if he could.
For you, this imprint serves as a source of anger, as you placed those teachings in there as a child, all in good faith, only to find out later you were being contaminated with shite.
Well, having never been exposed to religion, I have nothing in that slot. For you this slot is a source of anger, for me I wonder if my capability for "faith" was forever sealed when my hardwiring set. Although, as with you, you can be "unfaithed" but with some residua.
Well, I'm on the verge of a ramble, good night, it's been fun.
edit: "being on the verge" was probably an understatement :lol:
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Biggles@16 September 2003 - 14:49
J2K4
I profess no great knowledge on US Constitutional affairs. Indeed I think I am right in saying that it is area of rich pickings for lawyers as they weave their own peculiar brand of magic in trying to develop new and interesting interpretations.
I also don't know much about the lump of rock - other than it sounded quite large and heavy (clearly not designed to hang in a tastefully discrete frame :) )
I think ultimately in any such situation, it is the intent of the individual rather than the act itself. The judge in question is unknown in these parts and consequently I can pass no comment with regards his intent. Those local are much better placed to examine the dynamics of the situation.
Much more interesting is the concept of "The Rights of Man". Although I am sure the founding fathers had only the highest motives I doubt whether any social edifice can truly defy the ill-intended. But then again, some safeguards are better than none.
I would be interested in what people think their rights are, and are they safeguarded or not? Without being too boring perhaps we could limit it to essential rights (is the right to party essential? ... perhaps. :rolleyes: )
I fear that although almost all religions do have a set of moral codes and, by and large, the basic tenets of these codes are the same, a theocracy is not a happy place to be. Perhaps I am being constricted by my own cultural boundaries, but I think I prefer a liberal democracy to any other form government. Of course, liberal democracies are messy and largely ill-disciplined and dis-organised. :) but what better way to keep at bay those who "know" what is best for us? Not the most visionary political standpoint I know. I think rather it is one borne out of seeing government in action over the years.
Sorry this has strayed off topic a little. The Rights of Man and God is there a link? :blink:
PS Thank you for your kind words Hobbes and Clocker - I never thought of Biggles as a clown before but it has a certain fit even if you are familiar with the books.
Ah-
You know, both sides have made much too much over the whole case of Moore's "rock".
It has been a showcase for astounding ignorance on both sides, with nobody even marginally equipped to argue or debate the unassailable facts of the matter, so really, though care should be taken when discussing it, neither side, pro or con, serves, or is served, by what passes for discourse.
The media is culpable also.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by chalice@17 September 2003 - 11:54
Even now, as an adult, in trying to educate my children, my beliefs are compromised at every turn. There is no educational structure where I live where a child can be taught without the old, rigid rules of religious conformity. My son has entered his third year of primary school (his first communion year) and the faeces will hit the fan when the school finds out that he has never been baptised. I fear for him. Really.
He is given ridiculous catacisms to recite and I must tow the line so as not to contradict whatever truisms those teachers impart upon him. There is no escape from it, not here anyway. I feel irreversible harm is being done to him daily and I must smile and nod.
I find this part of your post deeply disturbing Chalice.
I have fought battles with schools over religious education. The choice of faith to follow lies with the parent, not the school. Forced religious brainwashing must be fought against. Our children come first, their whole future is at stake. I feel you must fight for their rights, demand it, don't feel bad that your kids weren't baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground. Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.
Or you could emigrate to Australia, schools here are very much different to the UK.
;)
Posted by: ilw
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 07:46
don't feel bad that your kids weren't baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground. Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.
I hope you like your kids being teased :lol:
Posted by: Billy_Dean
ilw, I wouldn't allow my kids to be in a position like that.
I have four kids, and a grandson, none of whom have been baptised. All my children are glad not to have had religion forced on them.
Schools have no right to brainwash kids, full stop, I don't care what they say.
I've had several run-ins with schools in England with my two eldest over religious instruction, and always won, neither of them were teased.
In Australia, I have had no problems at all.
:)
Posted by: cowswithguns
Originally posted by ilw+17 September 2003 - 08:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 17 September 2003 - 08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 07:46
don't feel bad that your kids weren't baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground.* Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.
I hope you like your kids being teased :lol: [/b][/quote]
I've found that in most primary schools here now the norm is for children who want religious instruction to attend those lessons at a nearby school eg a Catholic school or the like.
Parents have to give their permission for their children to attend. It is now not a compulsory part of school life. This is how it should be....it should NOT be forced on anyone.
Edit: I'm from Melbourne, Australia
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by ilw+17 September 2003 - 17:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 17 September 2003 - 17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 07:46
don't feel bad that your kids weren't baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground. Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.
I hope you like your kids being teased :lol: [/b][/quote]
What a strange thing to say!
:huh:
Posted by: ilw
why? I'm sure in many schools singling your child out for special treatment causes teasing. I'm sure if you did this for all your children that at least one of them must have experienced some blowback from it. And i doubt that N. Ireland is the most religiously tolerant place for children. Was never an issue at my school, we all had religious studies, but that was studying religion as a concept and the various religions.
Why the second reply?
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by ilw@18 September 2003 - 00:35
why? I'm sure in many schools singling your child out for special treatment causes teasing. I'm sure if you did this for all your children that at least one of them must have experienced some blowback from it. And i doubt that N. Ireland is the most religiously tolerant place for children. Was never an issue at my school, we all had religious studies, but that was studying religion as a concept and the various religions.
Why the second reply?
I don't see your point. The alternative, in this instance, was to have your kids taught things you were against, or a little teasing. Principles are principles, you stand by them.
I'm sure if you did this for all your children that at least one of them must have experienced some blowback from it
No!
Why the second reply?
I was bored, j2's no fun any more, he's run out of opinions to ridicule, so I thought I'd annoy you.
B)
Posted by: ilw
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 16:48
I'm sure if you did this for all your children that at least one of them must have experienced some blowback from it
No!
As far as u know....
let them be taught crap and just point out to them how much bollocks it is.
Principles are principles, you stand by them.
lol, very big of you when you're not the one paying the price.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
lol, very big of you when you're not the one paying the price.
Of course I'm paying the price, they're my kids, I have responsibilities towards them, and they have trust in me.
Better to teach them to handle teasing than allow adults to attempt to brainwash them.
B)
Posted by: ilw
Ah the 'it builds character' reply, excellent response to your children being teased, and no, if you're unaware of the teasing you pay no price, but your kids do.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Billy
I've had several run-ins with schools in England with my two eldest over religious instruction, and always won, neither of them were teased.
Maybe you didn't hear me, read again, they were not teased.
Or maybe you know more about my kid's lives than I do?
They weren't bullied either, OK?
I taught my kids well, don't worry, no-one puts it over them, any of them.
B)
Posted by: ilw
Billy trust me no one knows your kids lives better than me :shifty:
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 11:23
Billy
I've had several run-ins with schools in England with my two eldest over religious instruction, and always won, neither of them were teased.
Maybe you didn't hear me, read again, they were not teased.
Or maybe you know more about my kid's lives than I do?
They weren't bullied either, OK?
I taught my kids well, don't worry, no-one puts it over them, any of them.
B)
So you say.
Are you positive, Billy, that you are privy to every comment your children hear?
How can you be so sure?
If your children are duty-bound to report any and all interactions to you daily so you can suss the intent of others, then you are brow-beating them; I am sure, however, you wouldn't be so cruel, especially to your own children.
You ridicule religion and those who would instruct their children thus (I agree that "school" is not, per se, the ideal venue for religious instruction), and then claim your children are immunized from the hazing of others by virtue of your own superior advisory-please convince me of the efficacy of your supposition?
If you are successful in doing so, I will adopt your stance, as it will surely sweep the world. ;)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I just read your post out to a friend of mine and her comment was, "what an absolute wanker"
B)
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 12:22
I just read your post out to a friend of mine and her comment was, "what an absolute wanker"
B)
So you're running out of opinions, too? :huh:
At least I'm not stooping to solicitation, Billy. B)
Posted by: ilw
Billy out of curiousity were any of your children ever teased?
Edit: And what time is it in Australia, isn't it a bit early to be having a friend round and how come your checking posts on the internet at the same time?
Posted by: Billy_Dean
solicitation
n 1: an entreaty addressed to someone of superior status; "a solicitation to the king for relief" 2: request for a sum of money (as in church) [syn: appeal, collection, ingathering] 3: the act of enticing a person to do something wrong (as an offer of sex in return for money) [syn: allurement]
What she said ...
B)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
...what time is it in Australia ..
2:37 am
..isn't it a bit early to be having a friend round ...
No.
... and how come your checking posts on the internet at the same time?
Cos I'm clever.
B)
Posted by: thewizeard
Maybe this thread should be respectfully returned to the lounge, it could do it some good.
Posted by: hobbes
Well J2,
I guess it is official. Among Billy's illiterate friends, you are considered a "wanker". It is 2:37 a.m. and he has illiterate friends over. We call them prostitutes here in the states. I guess it has not dawned on old sausage boy, that when you used the word "solicitation", definition #3 was obvious and implied.
solicitation- 3: the act of enticing a person to do something wrong (as an offer of sex in return for money) [syn: allurement]
BTW: Did you get the "Around the world package"? You type naughty messages to ILW and J2 across the sea, then read her the responses aloud, while she wanks you. Something tells me that tip money may have been involved in her reply.
J2- EBP is from the UK, Billy Dean and Echidna are from Australia, don't forget myfiles3000 from Canada
I happen to agree with Billy on the school issue, though. Nobody is going to cram my kids head full of crap but me.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Hobbes.
I guess it is official. Among Billy's illiterate friends, you are considered a "wanker". It is 2:37 a.m. and he has illiterate friends over. We call them prostitutes here in the states. I guess it has not dawned on old sausage boy, that when you used the word "solicitation", definition #3 was obvious and implied.
solicitation- 3: the act of enticing a person to do something wrong (as an offer of sex in return for money) [syn: allurement]
BTW: Did you get the "Around the world package"? You type naughty messages to ILW and J2 across the sea, then read her the responses aloud, while she wanks you. Something tells me that tip money may have been involved in her reply.
You, Hobbes, have just proved to the world what an arsehole you are. I was on the phone to a dear friend of mine, a respected mother of teenagers. J2's post came up and I read it out to her, that was her response, quite rightly too, he accused me of browbeating my kids, something she knows is not true.
You then call her an illiterate prostitute. She will be on later, she can then call you all the c*nts you deserve to be called.
I had a certain amount of respect for you Hobbes, that has now completely disappeared.
Posted by: cowswithguns
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@18 September 2003 - 05:02
Hobbes.
I guess it is official. Among Billy's illiterate friends, you are considered a "wanker". It is 2:37 a.m. and he has illiterate friends over. We call them prostitutes here in the states. I guess it has not dawned on old sausage boy, that when you used the word "solicitation", definition #3 was obvious and implied.
solicitation- 3: the act of enticing a person to do something wrong (as an offer of sex in return for money) [syn: allurement]
BTW: Did you get the "Around the world package"? You type naughty messages to ILW and J2 across the sea, then read her the responses aloud, while she wanks you. Something tells me that tip money may have been involved in her reply.
You, Hobbes, have just proved to the world what an arsehole you are. I was on the phone to a dear friend of mine, a respected mother of teenagers. J2's post came up and I read it out to her, that was her response, quite rightly too, he accused me of browbeating my kids, something she knows is not true.
You then call her an illiterate prostitute. She will be on later, she can then call you all the c*nts you deserve to be called.
I had a certain amount of respect for you Hobbes, that has now completely disappeared.
Hobbes,
Where do I start.........
Firstly I am far from illiterate and secondly, and most importantly, I am NOT and I repeat NOT a prostitute.
I stand by what I said.......J2 is a wanker, a first class one at that.
You, Hobbes, on the other hand are obnoxious. I liken you to cat sh*t, looks OK on the outside, but step on it and you find that something evil lies inside.
I do believe you owe me an apology.
Posted by: hobbes
Did you two actually notice my signature had changed? That was not random. I was putting together the circumstances in the most humorous and OTT way possible and I was able to tie in the word "solicitation" to boot, in a rather seamless fashion, I might add.
All in all, I thought it was one of my better efforts. You have to admit that I tied the circumstances into a rather tight and believable package. It is a shame that people who freely fling arrows at others, then ask them where their senses of humor are, are so easily and deeply wounded by return fire.
Lighten up, don't take yourselves so seriously and if you don't like being teased, then don't provoke it. I mean, you wished me many more 9/11's and I didn't flame you, why would I do so now about something that doesn't concern me? You should pick up on this incongruity.
See Billy, you guys flamed me, I just quenched them and moved on. I told you I lead by example.
CWG: I apologize to you because we are strangers and you had no way of knowing my true intent. In addition, I have no ego problem with saying I am sorry. I guess phone sex is not technically called "prostitution". <_< (yes, that's a joke).
Actually, I consider myself more like wine than catshit, an aquired taste.
Her is a little nonsense to lighten your moods (credit to 4play): http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail77.html
Posted by: J'Pol
I love it when people, who are happy to abuse and name-call others get onto the moral high ground and demand an apology when someone is "nasty" to them.
I also love it when people talk about what they are and aren't as if others should know this. The only way people know you here is thro' what you write and how you write it. So if someone forms an opinion of you it is based on your own words.
As an aside it appears in the modern world that Christian bashing is more acceptabe than any other religion bashing. However this only appears to be the case in "Christian countries". It appears that people can say pretty much what they want about followers of Christ and that is OK, however if one makes comment on Faiths such as Islam one is immediately branded a racist or some such thing.
Well I am a Catholic, I find your comments about my brainwashing personally offensive. I am not hard wired with anything. I am a rational person who has made up his own mind. I do not believe or follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church. However I do believe enough of them (particularly the important ones) to continue to describe myself as a Catholic.
I also know plenty of people who have been raised in an entirely non religious way, who have found their own faith and follow it. Who hard wired them. Or indeed who hard wired the atheists. (I leave agnostics out of this for obvous reasons).
Posted by: thewizeard
Nevertheless, I still think we should respect each others opinion and not be so personal. :(
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by hobbes@19 September 2003 - 03:42
CWG: I apologize to you because we are strangers and you had no way of knowing my true intent. In addition, I have no ego problem with saying I am sorry. I guess phone sex is not technically called "prostitution". <_< (yes, that's a joke).
Actually, I consider myself more like wine than catshit, an aquired taste.
You can crawl out of it any way you want Hobbes, you apologised to Cowsy, so that's OK.
As to my "fight" with j2k4, I have a lot of respect for the man. Our arguments have been mostly good humoured. We have slung insults at each other without reverting to the vitriol you stooped to. It certainly wasn't your job to butt in with that shit. J2k4 is quite capable of looking after himself, as he has proved often enough.
@jpaul:
I love it when people, who are happy to abuse and name-call others get onto the moral high ground and demand an apology when someone is "nasty" to them.
First off, who did I demand an apology from? Read first JP, answer after.
I also love it when people talk about what they are and aren't as if others should know this. The only way people know you here is thro' what you write and how you write it. So if someone forms an opinion of you it is based on your own words.
Have I ever had a problem with that? Play me, not my friends.
I find it rather ironic that you should be defending the catholic church from a charge of brainwashing. I would have thought with all the shit and misery they have caused to so many people, and continue to cause, that an accusation like that was small fry.
I stand by my words, teaching religion, any religion, to young kids, who don't understand both sides is wrong, and an attempt to instill a doctrine before the child is old enough to make up their own mind.
The point you make about people being raised in a non religious way, then finding faith, reinforces my view, there is no need to force it on kids.
As to bashing Islam, be my guest, who cares. I personally find that it's judaism that is untouchable, not islam. I guess I'm anti-semetic, at least, I hope I am.
B)
Posted by: ilw
JPaul I was wondering, which parts of the catholic faith do you believe and or follow? Is it mostly the ethics or is it more the spiritual teachings? Also are you a practicing catholic or is it simply the belief thats important to you?
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@18 September 2003 - 20:16
I guess I'm anti-semetic, at least, I hope I am.
Really?
Posted by: thewizeard
anti-Semitic=
hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
I can't believe this Rikk...
Posted by: Snee
I'm hoping that he means that he is against the belief's of judaism, and judaism itself as a religion, and not that he would discriminate against those who follow the creed individually.
Puh-leeze say it is so Billy_Dean
Posted by: clocker
Billy Dean: from the "Palestine or Israel" thread...
Exeus, one of the reasons the mainstream media in Australia is pro-Israeli is because it is largely jewish owned. Not the stations, the content, which, as you will know, is mostly fed to us from the States.
Apparently an adherent of the old "Jewish Media Conspiracy" theory also.
Posted by: lynx
Semitic
adj.
1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.
2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.
Perhaps Billy didn't realise he was including most of the Middle East in his anti-semetic (sic) statement.
Posted by: chalice
I hate this thread.
Look what it has become. I hate it.
Posted by: Snee
"evidence of a designed universe" (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html)
Good for a laugh at least.
(Sorry Chalice, this is a bit more on-topic)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Anti-Semitism \An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews
Obviously it was, strictly speaking, the wrong phrase to use.
Snny.
I'm hoping that he means that he is against the belief's of judaism, and judaism itself as a religion, and not that he would discriminate against those who follow the creed individually.
I should have said this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the sort of thing I mean. I'm sure there's other sides to this.
"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud..."
"Babylonian Talmud", published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII
The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as "Gentiles", "Goyim". Let's see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve's "Chosen People":
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
Opposing this type of rubbish is also considered anti-semitic, that is my understanding.
Posted by: Biggles
Snny
An interesting link. However, I rather suspect the good Dr. has an a priori attachment to his faith which leads him to make the connections he has. This does not mean his conclusions are wrong, merely that it must be included in any analysis of his thesis.
I personally have no problem with the idea of intelligent design inherent in the Universe - I just don't see the connection between that and say, for example, not eating pig or for that matter whatever taboo is relevant to any particular faith here on Earth. The sheer antiquity of the Universe and the many attempts here on Earth by other species to establish themselves prior to man does beg a number of questions. We have existed only a short time in comparison to the many that have gone before. Life may be by design, but it is vanity to assume that we are the apex. We may simply be a step along the way.
There is, I suppose, a good argument for the position that all faiths are an attempt to commune with that intelligent design and consequently all faiths are equally valid. Unfortunately, the more vocal adherents of each religion are less than keen on this idea - each claiming sole ownership of the truth.
Therein lies the problem. In my view all religion is man made. Faith may be divine, but it is a walk apart from this earth and requires no validation from others nor does it seek to impose on others. However, that is only my view.
Chalice, I agree - it does appear to have become a little tetchy in here. Robust humour can be fun but the wheels can fall off very quickly.
Posted by: Snee
I thought he'd incorporated a bit too much wishful thinking into the mix myself. But I too felt it was interesting to say the least.
Edit: in regards to the link.
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@19 September 2003 - 04:16
@jpaul:
I love it when people, who are happy to abuse and name-call others get onto the moral high ground and demand an apology when someone is "nasty" to them.
First off, who did I demand an apology from? Read first JP, answer after.
I also love it when people talk about what they are and aren't as if others should know this. The only way people know you here is thro' what you write and how you write it. So if someone forms an opinion of you it is based on your own words.
Have I ever had a problem with that? Play me, not my friends.
I find it rather ironic that you should be defending the catholic church from a charge of brainwashing. I would have thought with all the shit and misery they have caused to so many people, and continue to cause, that an accusation like that was small fry.
I stand by my words, teaching religion, any religion, to young kids, who don't understand both sides is wrong, and an attempt to instill a doctrine before the child is old enough to make up their own mind.
The point you make about people being raised in a non religious way, then finding faith, reinforces my view, there is no need to force it on kids.
As to bashing Islam, be my guest, who cares. I personally find that it's judaism that is untouchable, not islam. I guess I'm anti-semetic, at least, I hope I am.
B)
1. I did not say you had asked for an apology - you chose that shoe yourself.
2. I said I was a Catholic and defended the Catholic Faith. As with many organisations, particularly the older ones there are almost inevitably dark times and people who align themselves to it. I do not believe that I defended the Catholic Church.
3. People are also taught atheism. By the example of their parents and those around them. This is no different.
4. Your views are yours and you have the right to express them. Disagreeing with soemone however is an entirely different thing from attacking what they believe.
Posted by: lynx
Originally posted by SnnY@19 September 2003 - 16:48
"evidence of a designed universe" (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html)
Good for a laugh at least.
(Sorry Chalice, this is a bit more on-topic)
It seems to me that he is taking natural facts, and using them as evidence that they are a bit too convenient for us to have been placed sonewhere with just the right conditions. He seems to ignore the obvious possibility that had the conditions for life been different, that we might have come to exist in another place.
In other words, it is not coincidence, the fact that the right conditions exist is the reason why we are here rather than a place which would not support life. Indeed, if the conditions for life were different, there is sufficient diversity in the universe to ensure that life would still have come to exist, although such life may not be in places which we would regard as habitable, never mind hospitable.
While I would not question his knowledge of Engineering and Materials Science, it seems doubtful if his skills in logic are all that well developed. He probably believes that if all mice are grey and all mice make holes in your walls, then everything that is grey makes holes in your walls. I hope he never gets elephants.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I love it when people, who are happy to abuse and name-call others get onto the moral high ground and demand an apology when someone is "nasty" to them.
I'm quoting you here JP, your words.
4. Your views are yours and you have the right to express them. Disagreeing with soemone however is an entirely different thing from attacking what they believe.
How about when their religion, by it's own doctrine, is an attack on me? When a religion claims "their way" and their beliefs are the only true path, and their followers are the only ones who will find "salvation", is that not an attack on me?
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
Can I not attack this, because it is someone's belief?
:)
Posted by: Snee
@lynx: it may be mad, but it's still an interesting perspective, no?
@billy_dean: I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't believe that modern jews live by this belief to any larger extent, and at any rate they do acknowledge that you have the potential at least to become human since there always is the option to convert :P
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by SnnY@20 September 2003 - 04:09
@billy_dean: I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't believe that modern jews live by this belief to any larger extent, and at any rate they do acknowledge that you have the potential at least to become human since there always is the option to convert :P
Are you sure about that?
:)
Posted by: Rat Faced
Originally posted by SnnY@19 September 2003 - 19:09
@lynx: it may be mad, but it's still an interesting perspective, no?
@billy_dean: I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't believe that modern jews live by this belief to any larger extent, and at any rate they do acknowledge that you have the potential at least to become human since there always is the option to convert :P
In any religion, Fundamentalism is wrong.
An ultra-orthodox Jew would not speak to you if he could help it, and certainly would not invite you into a social gathering...exactly because he believes this.
An ultra-orthodox jew barely recognises other jews, if they are not ultra-orthodox.
Thankfully, most Jews are not ultra-orthodox, just like most muslims and christians are not fundamentalist.
People should be judged by who they are, not on a misunderstanding as to their beliefs, based on a generalization.
I would also ask you to look into conversion.....its not easy to convert to Judaism.
You have to prove you have a jewish soul 1st.....
This is the one Religion of the world not trying to save you, conversion is actively discouraged by Rabbi's. You either have a Jewish soul or dont...its upto you to prove it. If you dont, your not one of the chosen....simple.
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@19 September 2003 - 20:03
I love it when people, who are happy to abuse and name-call others get onto the moral high ground and demand an apology when someone is "nasty" to them.
I'm quoting you here JP, your words.
4. Your views are yours and you have the right to express them. Disagreeing with soemone however is an entirely different thing from attacking what they believe.
How about when their religion, by it's own doctrine, is an attack on me? When a religion claims "their way" and their beliefs are the only true path, and their followers are the only ones who will find "salvation", is that not an attack on me?
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
Can I not attack this, because it is someone's belief?
:)
Are you being obtuse - who mentioned your name. I certainly did not. You quote me - probably a good idea to read the quote. Like I said earlier, if you chose to try that particular shoe on and found that it fit that is a matter between you and .... you.
When did I attack your belief in atheism (if that's not a contradiction in terms). I have never described you as an animal, I have nothing against animals. Neither have I cast scorn on what was programed into your brain.
You have every right to defend yourself, at least I believe so. However that is entirely different from scattergun attacks on anyone who happens to believe in a deity.
Posted by: Snee
My point (if I had one was) A. That most jews don't live by those, somewhat skewed ideals
And B. That they acknowledge the possibility of you "being human" if it's up to you to prove, it certainly makes it harder, but there is still a chance, although slimmer than I would have liked to think.
And yes fundamentalism is wrong, and come to think of it so is most forms of organized religion, given the amount of misery it has caused during centuries passed.
But you certainly can't judge anyone on the basis of their particular beliefs alone,
unless, of course, those beliefs involve an enforced lack of acceptance towards the rest of mankind.
Edit: am I wrong in any way here?, any jews in the audience? :)
Edit again: @ratfaced: who were you aiming at?, I was a bit off with regards to the conversion bit, but I tried to say the same thing you did otherwise ie: most jews do not live with the belief that gentiles are animals. :)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by JPaul@20 September 2003 - 04:26
[QUOTE]I love it when people, who are happy to abuse and name-call others get onto the moral high ground and demand an apology when someone is "nasty" to them.
Come off it JP, this remark was aimed at me, and you know it was! You're like the kid with jam round his mouth, denying he'd had his fingers in the jar. Go read back, put your words in perspective, stop squirming.
You then go on to deny calling me an animal! Did someone accuse you of that too?
Religions feel free to attack anything they see fit, and do so all the time. When they are attacked back, they appeal for "respect" whilst showing little in return.
Someone once claimed that if it were not for the catholic church, man would have landed on the moon 1000 years ago. An interesting thought.
:)
Posted by: hobbes
Where is Cowswithguns? I thought she would be udderly delighted with my apology. Must be out to pasture.
Again, it is ironic that the very vehicles which claim a loving God, a forgiving God are the cause of so much strife.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I had a long talk to an Afghani mate yesterday, a muslim by birth, but not by practise. He is an unashamed jew hater, his right of course, just as many jews hate muslims.
We had a long discussion\argument on lots of issues, but there was one really funny interlude. It began when he asked why, if jews were god's "chosen people", did this god not intervene in the holocaust. After all, he said, hitler was only one man, surely their god was more powerful than that? He then went on to talk about the jewish "homeland", and asked why, if they were god's chosen people, did he give them some of the worst land in the world. With all the beautiful, green productive land around the world, why there? He then said god was probably trying to lead them somewhere nice, but these stupid people kept getting lost in the desert, after 40 years of this, god finally gave up and said, here, here it is, you've arrived, and left them to it.
Well it was funny at the time anyway.
:)
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 05:32
I had a long talk to an Afghani mate yesterday, a muslim by birth, but not by practise. He is an unashamed jew hater, his right of course, just as many jews hate muslims.
We had a long discussion\argument on lots of issues, but there was one really funny interlude. It began when he asked why, if jews were god's "chosen people", did this god not intervene in the holocaust. After all, he said, hitler was only one man, surely their god was more powerful than that? He then went on to talk about the jewish "homeland", and asked why, if they were god's chosen people, did he give them some of the worst land in the world. With all the beautiful, green productive land around the world, why there? He then said god was probably trying to lead them somewhere nice, but these stupid people kept getting lost in the desert, after 40 years of this, god finally gave up and said, here, here it is, you've arrived, and left them to it.
Well it was funny at the time anyway.
:)
Well, remember God has not always been in good temper. He did kill every human being and animal with the great flood. The holocaust was a triviality compared to that. It wasn't a rash decision either as the ark took 104 years to construct.
If the land is worthless, why are the Palestineans fighting for the same plot?
Posted by: Billy_Dean
If the land is worthless, why are the Palestineans fighting for the same plot?
Maybe their god doesn't give a shit either!
:)
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 05:49
If the land is worthless, why are the Palestineans fighting for the same plot?
Maybe their god doesn't give a shit either!
:)
I guess it goes back to how pathetic the whole situation is.
Two sides, fighting to the death, over Gods which don't exist and land that is totally worthless.
Reminds me of myself trying to pick up ugly chicks in the bar parking lot after closing time- a lose/lose proposition.
Posted by: james_bond_rulez
Originally posted by hobbes@20 September 2003 - 05:10
Reminds me of myself trying to pick up ugly chicks in the bar parking lot after closing time- a lose/lose proposition.
why would u wanna do that?
:D
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+20 September 2003 - 07:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 20 September 2003 - 07:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@20 September 2003 - 05:10
Reminds me of myself trying to pick up ugly chicks in the bar parking lot after closing time- a lose/lose proposition.
why would u wanna do that?
:D [/b][/quote]
You only realise they are ugly the next day.
See related topic "beer goggles".
Posted by: james_bond_rulez
Originally posted by hobbes+20 September 2003 - 06:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 20 September 2003 - 06:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 07:00
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@20 September 2003 - 05:10
Reminds me of myself trying to pick up ugly chicks in the bar parking lot* after closing time- a lose/lose proposition.
why would u wanna do that?
:D
You only realise they are ugly the next day.
See related topic "beer goggles". [/b][/quote]
lolololololololol
Posted by: thewizeard
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 05:32
I had a long talk to an Afghani mate yesterday, a muslim by birth, but not by practise. He is an unashamed jew hater, his right of course, just as many jews hate muslims.
We had a long discussion\argument on lots of issues, but there was one really funny interlude. It began when he asked why, if jews were god's "chosen people", did this god not intervene in the holocaust. After all, he said, hitler was only one man, surely their god was more powerful than that? He then went on to talk about the jewish "homeland", and asked why, if they were god's chosen people, did he give them some of the worst land in the world. With all the beautiful, green productive land around the world, why there? He then said god was probably trying to lead them somewhere nice, but these stupid people kept getting lost in the desert, after 40 years of this, god finally gave up and said, here, here it is, you've arrived, and left them to it.
Well it was funny at the time anyway.
:)
Well Rikk, your Afghani friend appears to have an extensive knowledge of the Torah, maybe, being a muslim, he should read a little more in his Koran, then he would never make such jokes.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by nigel123+20 September 2003 - 16:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 @ 20 September 2003 - 16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 05:32
Well Rikk, your Afghani friend appears to have an extensive knowledge of the Torah, maybe, being a muslim, he should read a little more in his Koran, then he would never make such jokes.[/b][/quote]
Did I say he had an extensive knowledge of the Torah?
What I did say was that he was a non practising muslim.
:)
Posted by: thewizeard
It makes me feel unsettled when jokes are made about the killing of millions of people. (or any for that matter)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
It wasn't a joke, I found it funny in the context of the conversation.
He said it as a reply to two aspects of judaism: 1. That jews are god's chosen people. 2. That land was "given" to them by their god.
Or is he, as a muslim, practising or not, not entitled to refute claims made by another religion?
BTW, you should hear his views on islam, a religion he grew up with in Afghanistan. His views would certainly annoy many muslims.
:)
Posted by: cowswithguns
Originally posted by hobbes@20 September 2003 - 14:14
Where is Cowswithguns? I thought she would be udderly delighted with my apology. Must be out to pasture.
Again, it is ironic that the very vehicles which claim a loving God, a forgiving God are the cause of so much strife.
No Hobbes, not out to pasture just yet....
Udderly thrilled with the apology, thanks.
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 05:32
I had a long talk to an Afghani mate yesterday, a muslim by birth, but not by practise. He is an unashamed jew hater, his right of course, just as many jews hate muslims.
We had a long discussion\argument on lots of issues, but there was one really funny interlude. It began when he asked why, if jews were god's "chosen people", did this god not intervene in the holocaust. After all, he said, hitler was only one man, surely their god was more powerful than that? He then went on to talk about the jewish "homeland", and asked why, if they were god's chosen people, did he give them some of the worst land in the world. With all the beautiful, green productive land around the world, why there? He then said god was probably trying to lead them somewhere nice, but these stupid people kept getting lost in the desert, after 40 years of this, god finally gave up and said, here, here it is, you've arrived, and left them to it.
Well it was funny at the time anyway.
:)
I find that whole post disturbing. Particularly when taken in the context of previous posts you have made.
You find concept like "Jew Hater" easy to deal with and you have described yourself as anti-semitic.
Never mind your religious beliefs, I am more concerned about your political ones.
Posted by: james_bond_rulez
amen
Posted by: Billy_Dean
JPaul:
Never mind your religious beliefs, I am more concerned about your political ones.
What do you want to know?
:)
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 14:16
JPaul:
Never mind your religious beliefs, I am more concerned about your political ones.
What do you want to know?
:)
If you don't mind discusssing it - what your political persuasions are.
For example would you consider yourself a socialst, or would you consider yourself as being more conservative. Do your allegiances lie to the left or right of center. In either case would it be slightly or more extreme. In fact do you hold political views which would normally be considered extreme. In either direction.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
If I lean at all, it would be left, and sometimes right. Is there a position for cynicism?
I don't vote, never have and never will, tweedle dum and tweedle dee politics don't interest me.
My views on lots of things would be considered extreme, were you to know my true feelings.
:)
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 14:28
My views on lots of things would be considered extreme, were you to know my true feelings.
:)
I am interested, you don't seem like the sort of chap to hide his views. You certainly haven't given that impression.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
You'll really have to be more specific JP, I'm not gonna write a book. What exactly did you want to know? Or am I just meant to say something outrageous?
:)
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 15:09
You'll really have to be more specific JP, I'm not gonna write a book. What exactly did you want to know? Or am I just meant to say something outrageous?
:)
Say something, don't say something, it's entirely a matter for you.
You said you had some views which may be thought extreme by others. It simply piqued my curiosity. So I wondered if you would elucidate. If you wish not to that's cool.
I can't really be more specific, as I am totally unaware what your extreme views may be. A hint perhaps as to what area(s) they may cover.
Posted by: lynx
This sounds like fishing with a very long pole.
I believe they call it trolling. ;)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by lynx@20 September 2003 - 23:17
This sounds like fishing with a very long pole.
I believe they call it trolling. ;)
I think you're right!
Let me say again JP, if you wish to hear my opinion on a certain subject, ask me, I'll be happy to oblige.
As for opinions, I have hundreds, thousands maybe, who knows? How many do you have? Whether or not they are controversial, that's subjective, I would need to express them all, you would then have to decide. I don't see that happening.
:)
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 14:28
My views on lots of things would be considered extreme, were you to know my true feelings.
:)
This is what I was responding to. You said you had views which could be considered extreme.
As I said several posts ago if you want to discuss them cool, if not then no problem either way.
How is that fishing ?
In fact this is exactly what I said
"Say something, don't say something, it's entirely a matter for you.
You said you had some views which may be thought extreme by others. It simply piqued my curiosity. So I wondered if you would elucidate. If you wish not to that's cool."
How is that fishing ?
I thought you were an adult, given that you have stated you have children of your own, that is a reasonable assumption. If you want to talk and debate even argue, that's fine by me. Particularly if we have views which differ. Debating things which we agree on is really rather boring. If not fair enough it really isn't that important.
Posted by: Biggles
It is interesting that a thread on religion should ultimately disintegrate into a slanging match.
Interesting but ultimately not surprising I suppose. :ph34r:
Posted by: ilw
Originally posted by Biggles@20 September 2003 - 17:13
It is interesting that a thread on religion should ultimately disintegrate into a slanging match.
I think we generally manage that whatever the topic :-"
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Biggles@20 September 2003 - 17:13
It is interesting that a thread on religion should ultimately disintegrate into a slanging match.
Interesting but ultimately not surprising I suppose.* :ph34r:
This process is inevitable, I think it has to do with our "biorhythm". People will engage in intense back and forth dicussion for a variable yet finite amout of time. If resolution does not occur in this framework, minds will stray and the focus lost. Slanging is one of the options pursued in this break period and the thread will meanander about for a while until someone with a fresh mind joins in to refocus it. Meanwhile, our mods have been tossing the thread from forum to forum to match each post ;).
This process is not dependent on the subject matter, I think you will find evidence of this in every thread. We can only be intense and serious for so long, then we need to lighten it up, take a break.
I find this type of rhythm somewhat similar to what we observe in real life. Have you ever been in a busy restaurant, people talking busily, waiters shuffling about, silverware clanging, then suddenly, without cue, complete silence - everyone stops talking a once. A weird occurance where everyone takes a break simultaneously.
Anyway to push this thread back toward being on track, who is afraid of death? I am, it is the only thing I really fear.
I would like to go back to something JPaul said about death. He claimed to be afraid of death.
I was wondering if he meant:
1. Fear of what happens after death. Judgement or nothingness.
2. Fear of the moment when you realize you are actually dying (seconds to minutes away).
3. Fear of dying- the longer term process of a used body wasting away in some nursing home. Your former vibrant self reduced to a babbling poo-poo pants. You look at these people and say, "I never want that to be me!".
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by hobbes@20 September 2003 - 17:33
2. Fear of the moment when you realize you are actually dying (seconds to minutes away).
3. Fear of dying- the longer term process of a used body wasting away in some nursing home. Your former vibrant self reduced to a babbling poo-poo pants. You look at these people and say, "I never want that to be me!".
For me it's probably because I have watched both things happen. Twice each and very close up.
Posted by: Rat Faced
For me 3/
and, to be honest:
4/ Pain before death.
Death itself, i dont fear.........its what precedes it, that I dont like.
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 September 2003 - 10:26
Death itself, i dont fear.........its what precedes it, that I dont like.
Life?
Posted by: Rat Faced
:huh: :unsure: :unsure:
Posted by: thewizeard
Originally posted by clocker+20 September 2003 - 18:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 20 September 2003 - 18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@20 September 2003 - 10:26
Death itself, i dont fear.........its what precedes it, that I dont like.
Life? [/b][/quote]
You summed it up well clocker.
Posted by: jbrockz
as far as death is concrned, a quote from Fight Club always comes to mind ''...someday you will die, and until you know that, you are useless''
actually many FC quotes have maening for me...not that i m some tyler durden wannabe...they just make sense in a world gone mad
''you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake...you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else...we are all part of the same compost heap...we are the all singing all dancing crap of the world''
as for the ''...someday you will die, and until you know that, you are useless'' part, well think about it...if only we let ourself realize that eventually we are going to die, we wouldn't fear it as much...and many businesses wouldn't be able to take advantage of our fear, cryo-labs for example.
as for the rest, well, think about it, that's what humankind has been reduced to. you are born, you go to school, you study, you wor your ass off until you get an ulcer or cancer and then you grow old and wear diapers and die. if you are not bright, you'll end up being a janitor or a dishwasher, clean other's shit all your life and die...or worse, you'll join a gang, and one fine day, you'll be pumped lead in for something as stupid as a cigarette. you might be a bright young promising professional, looking at playing in millions, but you might get shot while taking a few dollars out the ATM. i stay pepared for all this, and that actually makes me happy. i like to live with this in the back of my mind so that i won't hold back when i have the chance to indulge in the little pleasures of life that are scattered here and there.
Posted by: J'Pol
Two "think about it" in one post.
People either will or won't - you dont have to give stage directions.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by JPaul@20 September 2003 - 22:09
Two "think about it" in one post.
People either will or won't - you dont have to give stage directions.
Place obligatory "That's a bit h4r5h" here.
Posted by: jbrockz
Originally posted by JPaul@20 September 2003 - 21:09
Two "think about it" in one post.
People either will or won't - you dont have to give stage directions.
i don't have to give [unintended] stage directions....you don't have to decide what are and aren't stage directions.
got a reply to the point?..and you don't get to decide what is and isn't a valid point....if you have one that's fine, if you don't that's fine too
i believe the term is ''conversational english''
Posted by: titey
http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/shock.gif There was a point?
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by titey@20 September 2003 - 23:33
http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/shock.gif There was a point?
Carpe diem, I believe.
Posted by: jbrockz
read the last two pages...is there a point to this thread?...i wrote my view and expected someone to reply to, even criticize, the view. the point is the view, not my english. i guess that was the point to my reply to jpaul, in case you are wondering.
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by jbrockz+20 September 2003 - 23:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jbrockz @ 20 September 2003 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@20 September 2003 - 21:09
Two "think about it" in one post.
People either will or won't - you dont have to give stage directions.
i don't have to give [unintended] stage directions....you don't have to decide what are and aren't stage directions.
got a reply to the point?..and you don't get to decide what is and isn't a valid point....if you have one that's fine, if you don't that's fine too [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that, very magnanimous of you.
It really is just annoying when people say, think about that. It is condescending, people here don't need instructions. We are aware of the concept of reading something then thinking about it.
Think about that is something you would say to a child, just before you grounded them.
If you want a reply to the post - what does "if your not that bright you will become a Janitor, or a dishwasher" mean. My mother worked as a cleaner in an old people's home for many years. She did it to help raise her children and give us a good standard of life. I can assure you she was very bright. However her own upbringing had not provided her with an education that could prove it. Her own mother was widowed in her 30's with 6 children, so they all left school to get jobs and support the family.
I know many people who are in "menial" jobs who are extremely bright and interesting. However for a variety of reasons, ranging from circumstance to personal choice they are not in highly paid jobs or jobs with an elevated status.
So you think about that before you go insulting people with your ill thought out posts. Particularly as you appear to be basing your life's philosophy on a good (if ultimately shallow) movie.
Posted by: jbrockz
Carpe Diem indeed, hobbes :)
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by hobbes+20 September 2003 - 23:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 20 September 2003 - 23:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-titey@20 September 2003 - 23:33
http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/shock.gif There was a point?
Carpe diem, I believe. [/b][/quote]
I prefer Carpe Jugulum - but you knew that already.
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by jbrockz@20 September 2003 - 23:40
Carpe Diem indeed, hobbes :)
So what's your reply to my last Horace.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by JPaul+20 September 2003 - 23:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 20 September 2003 - 23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by hobbes@20 September 2003 - 23:36
<!--QuoteBegin-titey@20 September 2003 - 23:33
http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/shock.gif There was a point?
Carpe diem, I believe.
I prefer Carpe Jugulum - but you knew that already. [/b][/quote]
No, I thought it was "Carpe scrotum"
Nice thought, well presented
Posted by: Rat Faced
I know many people who are in "menial" jobs who are extremely bright and interesting. However for a variety of reasons, ranging from circumstance to personal choice they are not in highly paid jobs or jobs with an elevated status.
I know people that are Rich and unhappy.
I know people that are classed as poor, however are extremely happy.
I consider the happy ones successful in life.....
I prefer Nightwatch, but shouldnt the preferences be in BookWorld ;)
Posted by: jbrockz
to jpaul
you expect me to take into account all 6 billion plus people and their lives before posting something....please don't mind me saying this but you strike me as a person for whom the meaning lies in words only, a critique of words rahter than their meaning . you with your thousand words, it seems couldn't understand the jist...something that hobbes summed up in two words....when i m driving to my point, many things have to be generalized. my own mother works as a bank teller. she was on her way to becoming a very good actresses when she got married to the wrong guy while in acting school, had me thinking that would change him and later divorced him for my safety, then became a bank teller to support me....my remark was towards those who go around thinking life is beautiful and we are all blessed and all that horseshit, who delude themselves from the reality of life and then are shocked when it hits them in the face.
Posted by: J'Pol
I will not cross swords with the erudite.
Hobbes and RF, I doff my cap to you - for now.
Posted by: J'Pol
Originally posted by jbrockz@20 September 2003 - 23:54
to jpaul
you expect me to take into account all 6 billion plus people and their lives before posting something....please don't mind me saying this but you strike me as a person for whom the meaning lies in words only, a critique of words rahter than their meaning . you with your thousand words, it seems couldn't understand the jist...something that hobbes summed up in two words....when i m driving to my point, many things have to be generalized. my own mother works as a bank teller. she was on her way to becoming a very good actresses when she got married to the wrong guy while in acting school, had me thinking that would change him and later divorced him for my safety, then became a bank teller to support me....my remark was towards those who go around thinking life is beautiful and we are all blessed and all that horseshit, who delude themselves from the reality of life and then are shocked when it hits them in the face.
So, in short, you should have known better than to insult hard working people.
Posted by: J'Pol
Is that succinct enough for you.
Posted by: jbrockz