RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes

RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 10:04:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Paul was a misogynist pig, and pissed because Mary got more attention than he did. For all I know, he may just have been annoyed that he didn't get to go down on all fours, but whatever his problem was, he spent more time on politics and personal issues than on matters of faith, at least as soon as he didn't have his mentor/master with him. LMAO!!! I have hesitated to be that outspoken about the impact of St Paul on the development of Christian theology, but I am of the opinion that Paul's Epistles constitute a major theological shift away from the principles articulated by Jesus within the four Gospels. Paul's Epistles are highly structured and legalistic, whereas Jesus' teachings have an almost Zen-like formlessness to them. The difference is even more apparent when one views extra-Biblical sources such as the Gospel Of Thomas.

mnottertail -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 10:12:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 There are problems with Cls "proofs", that do not require doing any math to notice. Take the finite Box over infinite time. Actually the particles in the box would simply sit motionless for all of time, unless the box is being shaken (Energy being applied in some form). [...] And anyone who disagrees just isn't smart enough to understand. Well, humously enough the particles could be thought to sit motionless with respect RELATIVE to the moving finite box, perhaps, but that also is: 'Schlau, aber nicht wahr.' A. Einstein

QuietlySeeking -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 10:42:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord even if a God should be made of a material completely unknown to us, using laws of Physics we can't even begin to understand, etc., he is still part of our universe and therefore falls into the theory. Yes, that's the other flaw in the construct. Essentially, it's a straw man argument. An entity which created the universe (i.e., God) has a relationship to the universe but must be separate from the universe. The universe is, by definition, anything in any way possibly related to it at any point. For example, I would call what might be colloquially referred to as a "parallel universe" as just another part of our own- that the universe just happens to be different from what we thought it was. Still, if you subscribe to a different definition of "universe", I'd ask you use mine for the purpose of the argument. (Whatever the word isn't doesn't matter- it's the concept I'm trying to point out.) PS- I'd like to thank you for the curteousy, especially if my aggressive voice slipped out earlier. It's been a hard issue for me in the past, so I can be overly zealous on the subject. Speaking from the uneducated viewpoint, since time would technically be "related" to this universe at many points, and by your definition anything that is related to the universe is part of the universe, wouldn't that make this so-called "universe" both finite and infinite (since you've defined time as infinite and the universe as finite)?

mnottertail -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 10:49:20 AM)
Speaking from the uneducated viewpoint, since time would technically be "related" to this universe at many points, and by your definition anything that is related to the universe is part of the universe, wouldn't that make this so-called "universe" both finite and infinite (since you've defined time as infinite and the universe as finite)? This is along the lines of Heisenberg uncertainty. We nail down a space-time coordinate and can say relative to our observance such and so occurred. However, we can do a variety of usual kind of things thinking of that point as finite when in fact it is a smear in the continuum. What works for the median or average case does not work for the very large and small cases. But in fact we get better and better at measuring, but our measurements can never be perfect because they start to interfere with the happenstance. Yanno; 'close enough for government work', so it is finite and infinite in that sense. Ron (also uneducated, but that is not likely to stop me from voicing opinions on the matter.)

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 11:18:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Religion is the narcissistic belief that one's own thoughts and feelings are universal and/or eternal. Coming from a very intelligent person, this is very unimaginative. In fact, if you analyze it from an atheist angle, it would be appropriate to analyze many of them in terms of the need for the conformist masses to submit to- and be guided by- others, the human pack instinct with its inherent power dynamic. As for Abrahamic religions, those were at the core of making a cohesive society out of a group of people that had known nothing but slavery for a long time. To say it is limited to narcissism falls short of a full analysis, from any angle. I say it's a "narcissistic belief that one's own thoughts and feelings are universal and/or eternal" since religion often has one believe that something he or she thinks- believes- to be elemental to nature. In the case of God or other concepts, the one believes to know the very base element of nature!, even if this one cedes that he is not entirely sure of the nature of this element. Still, he implies its sentient, along with other things, depending on the religion (i.e., a Christian would also imply God to be ultimately benevolent, and further imply that this elemental aspect of the universe is unusually related to an individual, Jesus Christ). By taking one's own thoughts and feelings, then claiming them as the basis of truth in the universal sense, a religious individual acts upon narcissistism in the sincerest of senses: he believes the entire world to revolve around what he wants it to. (One might argue, "If this is so, why would he simply not believe that the world revolves around his immediate person?" My response would be, "Because, for most, this is far too irrational to even attempt to claim openly- not that it's stopped some from doing so or many from doing so to themselves.") quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad 'Course, I'm just a crazy religious person, so never mind me. [:D] It'd be no fun if we agreed on everything, right?

mnottertail -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 11:21:05 AM)
I am confused as to how this might be getting us closer to buttfucking and whatnot with the sisters in the nunnery. BrotherLove

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 11:31:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The universe is, by definition, anything in any way possibly related to it at any point. For example, I would call what might be colloquially referred to as a "parallel universe" as just another part of our own- that the universe just happens to be different from what we thought it was. Still, if you subscribe to a different definition of "universe", I'd ask you use mine for the purpose of the argument. (Whatever the word isn't doesn't matter- it's the concept I'm trying to point out.) Speaking from the uneducated viewpoint, since time would technically be "related" to this universe at many points, and by your definition anything that is related to the universe is part of the universe, wouldn't that make this so-called "universe" both finite and infinite (since you've defined time as infinite and the universe as finite)? Backquote modified to be shorter. (Deeper backquotes cut out, a PS- note cut out, some spacing reduced.) Time's a pretty interesting concept. It doesn't really exist, so much as it's a measure of the interactions of things that do exist. When I said that, in my Black Box theory, that time would go on to infinity, I assumed that the universe would go on forever. (Because, if the universe doesn't go on forever, then everything will eventually die, which also agrees with the conclusion.) Oh, I called the box "finite", though, in the spatical sense. Sort of like.. even if you see the universe to be, say, a box. Spatial diminsions are the sides of the box (left, right, back, forward). Then the up and down directions are temporal diminsions. I'm saying that the box is finite in going left to right, or back and forward, but the top and bottom may very well go on forever.

Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 4:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 I have hesitated to be that outspoken about the impact of St Paul on the development of Christian theology, but I am of the opinion that Paul's Epistles constitute a major theological shift away from the principles articulated by Jesus within the four Gospels. Paul's Epistles are highly structured and legalistic, whereas Jesus' teachings have an almost Zen-like formlessness to them. I quite agree; it's a move to rules and literal thought. Jesus was a luminous figure, acting from something within him. Paul was nothing of the sort, perhaps a sort of beurocrat or politician. quote: The difference is even more apparent when one views extra-Biblical sources such as the Gospel Of Thomas. Quite. Which is one text that supports the notion of Paul as a misogynist bastard. [:D]

Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I say it's a "narcissistic belief that one's own thoughts and feelings are universal and/or eternal" since religion often has one believe that something he or she thinks- believes- to be elemental to nature. At the same time, you seemed to imply that was all there was to it, and that this was common to all religions. quote: It'd be no fun if we agreed on everything, right? Not in the least bit. [:D]

Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:03:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am confused as to how this might be getting us closer to buttfucking and whatnot with the sisters in the nunnery. We should whip up a new monastic order, obviously.

Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:04:46 PM)
Actually, as to the finite box and all that, it may be just as apt to view it as a point, being that it closes over itself, etc. [:D]

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Paul was nothing of the sort, perhaps a sort of beurocrat or politician. In fact, that's exactly what he was. He had received formal religious training and belonged to that group of Jewish leaders known as the Pharisees. Prior to his experience on the road to Damascus, he was doubly evil, being both bureaucrat AND politician![;)]

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I say it's a "narcissistic belief that one's own thoughts and feelings are universal and/or eternal" since religion often has one believe that something he or she thinks- believes- to be elemental to nature. At the same time, you seemed to imply that was all there was to it, and that this was common to all religions Largely, I think it is pretty common to most religions, where people take things that they want to believe in and claim to them be those universal truths. Not that they're all as narcissistic as a man who claims himself to be God, but many are narcissitic to the point of.. well, such as people believing that the universe revolved around the Earth. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Actually, as to the finite box and all that, it may be just as apt to view it as a point, being that it closes over itself, etc. [:D] It very well may be! Our particles, or masses at a point, are black boxes. Specs of dust, molecules, atoms, protons/nuetrons/electrons, etc. They can all be broken down further, which we tend to consider in many cases- yet, in others, there's no reason to, and simply easier to classify them as a single thing. Looking at a black box and considering it as a point in an area is one way of doing things. In this case, we're doing the bit where we look into the black box. :P (This method matches its typical use in that its trying to figure out the inner workings and nature of the contents of the box.) Edit: Darn extra quote tag.

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:40:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am confused as to how this might be getting us closer to buttfucking and whatnot with the sisters in the nunnery. We should whip up a new monastic order, obviously. Did somebody mention whipping? [:D]

Perplex -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 5:57:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord . Not that they're all as narcissistic as a man who claims himself to be God, but many are narcissitic to the point of.. well, such as people believing that the universe revolved around the Earth. First off, I'm not sure what is wrong with being a narcasist...I can't name 3 'great' men or women (defined as accompliashed something that we still talk about) who weren't...believing your vision is the only vision is ussually the only way to get anything worth doing done. now being stupid + narcasisism..that will end you up where you are implying...you can have your clear vision and even believe it is right for everybody, but you better have a lot of sugar to get it down their throats, or a really big stick to make it work and puts blast shield down at the moment the known universe does revolve around the earth everything we know, we know cuz your butt is stapled to terra and you do not have the perspective to know if what science is saying. cuz likewise thye are earthbound, is right or not. it may well look like things are the way they are according to popular science, get out there a few million lightyears and you may find "gee the universe does revolve around the earth"..I kinda doubt it too, but it's possible and you just don't know it's not true claiming that you do, is as much hubris as a preacher said "god told me yesterday..." edited to be more inclusive of whom can be great

Bobkgin -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 6:03:16 PM)
The universe is but a teardrop in the eye of God. Not sure why, just seemed appropos for the moment.

Rover -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 6:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin The universe is but a teardrop in the eye of God. Not sure why, just seemed appropos for the moment. I was thinking more a polyp in his colon. But that works too. John

MisPandora -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 7:28:09 PM)
fast reply This topic has been seriously derailed by discussions on the validity of religion, existence of G*d and all sorts of other crap. To the OP: the only thing that matters is that it is OK to you and those who are participating. I'd extend that personally to include those who might be exposed to said encounter (or at least provide some sort of warning or notice that you are about to offend the sensibilities of those around you.) And use one of these: http://www.divine-interventions.com/index2.php

mnottertail -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/31/2007 7:31:57 PM)
Now; I don't care if it rains or freezes; long as I got my plastic jesus; rammin down the pissflaps in my cunt----- David Allen Coe

MisterPervert -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 1:44:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Acknowledging the logical preference for simplicity, I suggest we start with a basic universal principal.... The one that always works for Me is a variant of Descartes: Coito ergo sum If you're going to do solipsism, best to do it right! Define "right" - :) I like the quote (Einstein?) - Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simplier. "Ars longa, vita brevis" - :) All joking aside, I'm enjoying your thoughts and posts, Celtic. Mr P

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125