RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 7:04:37 AM)

Having thought about it a few more seconds Kirata, yes I believe I see your point. A potential mate reading what I wrote in the absence of becoming my property in full may have to settle for chastity and for a time may need a chastity belt. I am after all a jealous god. Believe it or not, at least as I see it, what I wrote is not especially profane in that it speaks a truth. Must my females be entirely devoted to me? The answer is yes. There can be no misunderstanding on this point; it is a core inflexible value.




RCdc -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 7:55:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
I offer you a penetrating thought upon which you may contemplate: A true dominant male quotes himself out of necessity, for he has no equal.



A man who has dominance need not have to repeat himself to be heard, only state what he says once and allows others quote his wisdom.




tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 7:56:49 AM)

quote:

A man who has dominance need not have to repeat himself to be heard, only state what he says once and allows others quote his wisdom


QFT




PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 8:26:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
I adore females for their goodness and dam them for their evil ways.


quote:

Would that be a reference to a chastity belt of some sort?


quote:


Not necessarily though I suppose it could.


BM, Kirata was just making a dig at your use of the word 'dam' (i.e. plug) rather than 'damn' (cast into hell), that's all.   




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 8:52:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Kirata was just making a dig at your use of the word 'dam' (i.e. plug) rather than 'damn' (cast into hell), that's all.

Only indirectly. [:D]

K.




BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 9:11:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

BM, Kirata was just making a dig at your use of the word 'dam' (i.e. plug) rather than 'damn' (cast into hell), that's all.


I see. Thanks PeonForHer. I had to be brought down to Earth sometimes. But my words remain valid and structurally sound nonetheless, because though grammatical correctness is an expression of goodness it is not the essence of goodness. That requires vaginal fluid and semen for which planet syntax is devoid.

I've been there. The place is dry.

Revision History

I thought to add the final paragraph.




BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 9:20:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Kirata was just making a dig at your use of the word 'dam' (i.e. plug) rather than 'damn' (cast into hell), that's all.

Only indirectly. [:D]

K.



I'm thinking that what Kirata is getting is he may be wondering if I committed intentionally or unintentionally a Freudian slip. The word dam as in plug has numerous sexual connotations and so it poses an interesting question, What did BenevolentM really mean when he said that?




tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 9:24:34 AM)

Would you pony up the ten bucks already.. gesh!




BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 9:32:42 AM)

I suppose by the time everyone is finished we will have a complete list of homophones of the English language!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Would you pony up the ten bucks already.. gesh!


Are you volunteering? God has given you a calling tazzygirl.




tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 10:00:09 AM)

rofl

omg.. you dont know how funny that truly is!

im sure, eventually, someone will clue you in on why that would never even be a remote possibility.




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 3:31:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Post 301 is an avoidance. No where have you answered my question.

Now, i really dont like threats. I asked, you refused, then you tried to get around it by slapping up a video of an 80's band... which made no sense what so ever.

But dont state you answered my questions.


Actually I have answered your question. But it's like we are on two separate radio frequencies. Did you actually listen to the song or just stop after seeing what it was? Think of it as a metaphor to the current situation.

I don't mean this to sound rude but at this point my impression of you is you're insisting I say something you will accept and will continue denying everything I say until I do.

All that aside, going back to your post (#294)...the answer is no (again). Nobody's opinion is correct which is what I've been saying throughout the entire thread. Religion is an opinion as is science (they are perspectives, opinions, takes, impressions, etc.). The difference between the two is science can demonstrate its position...religion cannot.

But at this level, science and religion are apples and oranges if you are talking about taking them literally (which others have pointed out as well). Think of it this way (indulge me for a moment). Western religion told a story of the creation at a time when there was no viable alternative. People became vested in it. Then science came along and suddenly there was an alternative (sort of like a new tool in the toolbox). There has been a conflict with this ever since. At first it was mainly in favor of the religious crowd but as scientific theories showed themselves to be increasingly (and repeatedly) accurate as representative explanations for the universe, the religious crowd started to lose members and it has been shrinking ever since.

The sort of people I think are damaging to religion are people like Joel Osteen or any of the TV evangelists you see out there (Voice of Victory, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, the guy in Texas whose name escapes me, etc.), cults, fundamentalists, orthodox types, and the list goes on. These people are looking at the world through a pinhole (actually I sometimes wonder if they know what they are doing and are really just raking in the cash like Jim Baker did). They're all grossly mistaken in what they are doing and I'm not talking only about people who are in the public eye. I have met individuals who are exactly the same. Their minds are completely shut down but they will insist it is you who are close-minded in a confrontation.

The "problem" as I see it is religion (mainly western religion) is in serious need of a makeover. It's left up to interpretation...which is why there are all these sorts of people out there going off into left field. The vast majority of people on this planet do not have a very broad education so they fall victim to the seduction of evangelicals. They do not have the background or tools to make any critical comparisons.

The responsible thing to do (again in my view) is for these religions to "own up" to the vague and/or obsolete areas of what they preach and bring some clarity into people's lives for a change instead of exploiting ignorance and even subsidizing it.




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 3:36:23 PM)

Speaking of Joel...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/01/24/piers.osteen.homosexuality.cnn?hpt=T2

This guy really pushes my buttons but then again, I guess they all do. It's a shame we must tolerate this crap in the name of freedom of speech but don't get me wrong...I understand what's at stake if we didn't. Still, there is something unethical about it all.




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 3:41:57 PM)

Today I had my annual serving of the pro-life crowd. I'm not sure why I always forget about the big march on Washington each year (I've lived here for 18 years).

Anyway, I go to Union Station and find the place absolutely mobbed by these people with their signs waiting to go back to The Catholic University of America (the starting point for the march). It's actually sort of comical and ironic. Here they are protesting for pro-life and the place is so crowded you can barely move. I almost got knocked onto the train tracks by one guy stepping backwards to take a picture.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Help me Mr. Wizard.




BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 4:38:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

Nobody's opinion is correct which is what I've been saying throughout the entire thread. Religion is an opinion as is science (they are perspectives, opinions, takes, impressions, etc.). The difference between the two is science can demonstrate its position...religion cannot.


I do not believe that this is accurate in that the model used by religion is closer to how a political party will ferret out what is the truth. They just don't explain themselves because it is about dominance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
Their minds are completely shut down but they will insist it is you who are close-minded in a confrontation.


It's a lot of work to have an open mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

It's left up to interpretation...which is why there are all these sorts of people out there going off into left field.


This is the argument the Catholic Church had/has.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

The vast majority of people on this planet do not have a very broad education so they fall victim to the seduction of evangelicals.


Why are they so seductive? I don't understand it myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

... instead of exploiting ignorance and even subsidizing it.


It is a whole lot kinder to their bottom line. After all, its worth it. You are saving souls. What you are asking for is for people to become ethical and to choose righteousness over easy living. I personally don't see that happening here either.

Does anyone think I've got a better chance at getting pussy if I were an evangelical? Maybe that is the attraction.




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 6:10:24 PM)

quote:

I do not believe that this is accurate in that the model used by religion is closer to how a political party will ferret out what is the truth. They just don't explain themselves because it is about dominance.


Well, I said that on the basis that everything is a perspective of sorts when you go into it. I'm sure dominance is a part of it...maintaining control, getting wealthy are others...and I know there are many out there who are actually working hard to do good through religion. But I wonder just how much the good is outshining the bad (the evident corruption which exists today and has certainly in the past). As we mature through generations, you would think the time would come when some housecleaning was in order. If not, things just get skewed more and more. That's another issue with leaving something open to interpretation. Like a scale for weighing things accurately...every once in while it needs to be recalibrated. I think there are some things we can pretty much agree could stand a little redress.




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 6:21:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
QFT


I'm going to need your help again. What does "QFT" mean? I don't text (at all) or speak in acronyms enough to have the vocabulary.

Thanks




PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 6:56:20 PM)

QFT = quoted for truth.




Enigma108 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 8:02:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

[
Enigma,

No, I don't think that reality is necessarily open to direct experience, even if 'direct experience' were a possibility (and I'm a long way from sure that it is).  I think you're wrong on that. 

If you'd just inserted a few 'I think thats' or 'For mes' into your comment, and if you could have held back from putting a capital 'T' on the word 'truth' (as well as 'Transcendence, again), then you and I might have found some common ground on which we could discuss things.  For me, you have it entirely the wrong way round.  If the 'Truth' that you're talking about can't be looked at reasonably, then it remains conjecture.  Once the world of ideas has begun to be dealt with properly, then that other idea of 'transcendence' begins to fit into its proper place amongst them. 


I tend to share the reservations expressed about capital T Transcendence and Truth, especially the latter. I share post-modernism's distaste for the slippery notion of capital T Truth.

What I understand being proposed here is that the inaccessibility of Truth through language and reason is somehow reversed through some practice/ idea of going 'beyond'. If it is suggested that whatever an individual finds 'beyond' might be a truth for them, then that's fine by me. But expanding, totalising it to ideas of Oneness, Truth are a bit of a jump for me. I can't say that I am very clear about how this unification of experience came about, how it can be asserted that all 'pure' experience 'beyond' is the same experience for everyone.

My limited experience of states 'beyond' is difficult for me to convey in language. Though I don't believe that it would be impossible for someone far more gifted in the descriptive writing area than I to convey the feelings experienced in such states.

One way of putting it is that in some of those experiences, the focus of my awareness was outside my body. I could experience a depth of awareness of people and things without consciously thinking of them. There was a sense of serenity, a certain sagacity, feelings of bliss, 'floating in a chora-like sea of love', a kind of intermingling of 'spirits', an intuitive understanding of things that far exceeded any direct experience or knowledge I possessed, a feeling that I can comprehend things in their entirety through multiple frameworks simultaneously. Afterwards, there can be a feeling of consummation, of exhilaration, of radiance that sometimes lasts for days. I hope I am conveying some sense of the experience through this very incomplete attempt at description.

If I practice yoga, I tend to feel these feelings alone. If I am playing with BDSM partners we tend to share some of those feelings sometimes.

So it's not very easy for me to attribute some of the qualities that others here do to those states of being. And it would be hard for me to agree that it is an experience of a pure 'nothingness', though I can understand what that description is trying to do - it is a state I approximate sometimes at yoga.

In this context, I can appreciate the suggestion "Don't interpret, just meditate'. But it's something I find very hard to do - overcoming years and years of social and intellectual training. I hope this rambling rave makes sense [:D]


I enjoyed your rave tweakabelle, and I'd like to respond next chance I get, possibly a few days away. Unlike Kitara, whose razor mind can pith out wisdom in only a few words, I have to think things through and then fumble my way though whole essays.




Enigma108 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 8:05:56 PM)


quote:

I enjoyed your rave tweakabelle, and I'd like to respond next chance I get, possibly a few days away. Unlike Kitara, whose razor mind can pith out wisdom in only a few words, I have to think things through and then fumble my way though whole essays.
...and I have to get the hang of the quote system.

Satara




anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 9:08:13 PM)

Wondering if you have ever read anything by Krishnamurti or listened to any tapes or videos of him giving talks?




Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875