RE: The Covert Messiah

RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

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

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 1:27:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Is the scientific method the only possible and/or admissible research methodology to generate a deep accurate understanding of consciousness? Are the overall limits on the scientific method applicable or relevant in this area? Given that we have been discussing OBE and NDE I thought the issue has been the locus of consciousness not a "deep accurate understanding of consciousness." You yourself have referred to the locus of consciousness. Are you now moving the goal posts? Neuroscience has measured the depths of consciousness but not the subjective quality. (Recall the discussion on orgasm) There was no intention to shift the goalposts, and my bad if my post lends itself to that reading. The locus of consciousness is one aspect of the greater issue of arriving at a deep understanding of consciousness. It seems to me unlikely that a deep understanding could not be arrived at without some understanding of its locus. Be that as it may I am happy to go either way. quote: There are a number of isubjective experiences that will probably forever be beyond the scientific method except science can show that they originate in the brains the best explanation for them. Here we can turn to literature, music and visual arts as vehicles for discourse on those subjective experiences. Yes. I share your doubts about the difficulty in assessing subjective experiences. Up to about 18 months ago I would have taken the position some here have taken and demanded unambiguous evidence or proof that the locus of consciousness can exist outside the body. After much reflection I came to the view that this demand was fundamentally unfair - the demand for proof becomes a demand for the impossible, and evidence of experience is dismissed as “anecdotal” (on a good day) or “hallucinations” (on a bad day) depending on the mood of the acolyte doing the dismissing (some would say arrogance). This is why I find the demand for “scientific proof’ troubling. However I feel obliged to query your statement that some “subjective experiences that will probably forever be beyond the scientific method except science can show that they originate in the brain”. My understanding is that current research is limited to demonstrating a correlation between subjective exps and certain types of brain activity. I am unaware of any research demonstrating that these exps. ”originate” in the brain. It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the arrow of cause-and-effect points in both directions. quote: With respect to the overall limits of the scientific method let me repeat without being a foolishly optimistic utopian that science has a remarkable history of pushing back those limits as they are known in any age. So, who is to say? Indeed. However the limits I have been referring are constitutional limits, not practical ones. These limits are part of the structure. According Brionowoski, Bertrand Russell found that the only way these limits could be altered was by "taking the maths out of maths". So I am unable to share your optimism. quote: quote: However it is not clear to me why those answers are being interpreted by some as an attack on Science. To acknowledge the limits of Science is not to insist on eliminating Science as a handy research tool. It is not to declare Science irrelevant or cover for a full frontal assault on Science . It is not an excuse for validating any crackpot superstition. In 21st Century America science is perceived as evil. Add this current situation onto the past four hundred years of ecclesiastical pushback against science (after the good fathers and pastors were done with burning witches) and you will start to see why some science-philes are extremely sensitive to any perceived attempt to diminish science. There is a war on science from the religious right in America so our guard is constantly up which explains why Dawkins is rude, Harris is more stylishly aggressive and into mindful meditation in a big way, Dennett uses too many damn words to make his point, and sadly Hitchens has passed. But Christopher now has the answers!! [;)] My comments were actually directed at certain posters here who have consistently tried to link my position with creationists and other far Right nonsense. They have a broader application but that was not what I had in mind when I posted my comments. Nonetheless, I have no doubt everything you say here is correct. But please Vincent, no one in their right minds could ever accuse me of being (a) American, (b) religious or (c) a right winger. [;)] On these boards I have been consistently scathing about the Religious Right in the USA and wherever else these lunatics might trot out their drivel. So for people to react to my experiences in the same manner as they would to the Religious Right suggests an unthinking knee jerk response. Which is, I might add, about as un-scientific as it gets

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 6:01:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The discussion was about the religious right and you tried to shift it so it would appear we were attacking religious people in general. Really? Looking back at recent posts.... I find it sad that these types of discussions here tend to end up as Science vs Religion arguments. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4580804 To put it plainly, if there's any dispute between religion and science, I think we can all agree that religion started this dispute. So, if those who favor science over religion tend to come off a bit harsh towards religion and spirituality, there are good reasons why. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4580836 Vincent is the only person who confined his remarks to the "religious right". Moreover, you accused me of saying that the people who defend science are "bad guys". The people I was talking about aren't defending science. On a conciliatory note, I am more than sympathetic to seeing people who fuck with my car boiled in oil. K. Your reply was to Vincent's specific post about the religious right. You even chose to change his post by making the words bold and red. And you did attack people who defend science. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is a war on science from the religious right in America... Two problems arise coincident with the effort to oppose religion. The first is that it all too commonly manifests in attacks on persons; as deluded, ignorant, hallucinating, or worse. The second is that religion, qua religion, is not opposed to science. So while the effort enjoys styling itself as a noble endeavor in the service of all that is good and true, it is in practice more often than not just a self-serving excuse for running around making shit up and insulting people. Kudos for being specific. Unfortunately, you are the exception. K.

JadeFox937 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 6:55:01 AM)
Dom Ken- The historical Jesus can be proven by a first Century Jewish Historian. We have Documents dating to the first Century proving Jesus did walk and talk and he also thought he was a Messiah ( a David Koresh of his day). Look up Josephus The works of Jewish historian, Josephus (37-100 ca) Also, this movement would have NEVER made it this large on a Myth. The New Testament Jesus is a Myth I will agree to that, but there is a historical Jesus. He was far from what the NT authors claim. The NT authors make a suffering Messiah out of this Jesus and they did a sloppy Job when you look at it close to the OT Messiah. Two different Messiah's. Big difference is that the OT Messiah was going to be 'IN POWER, RULE' and EVERYONE would know who he was (not guess). The NT Jesus is NOTHING, he is spit on and mocked and mostly everyone don't know who he is (even Jesus don't know in Mark). The NT Jesus was from Galilee, the OT Messiah was to be from Bethlehem (this is why Luke makes up a false census, and we have two genealogy's in the NT about this Jesus ). Mark Twain *The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 7:20:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JadeFox937 Dom Ken- The historical Jesus can be proven by a first Century Jewish Historian. We have Documents dating to the first Century proving Jesus did walk and talk and he also thought he was a Messiah ( a David Koresh of his day). Look up Josephus The works of Jewish historian, Josephus (37-100 ca) Also, this movement would have NEVER made it this large on a Myth. Josephus wrote his Atiquities of the Jews, the books the Jesus references were in, in 93 and 94CE. The two passages that discuss Jesus were both at least embellished by later copiers. In the first passage, discussing the elevation to high priest of the temple the text originally said a man who was stoned was named James and had a brother named Jesus (both very common names in that time). Later monks added "who was called Christ" after the name Jesus. So it is of really no value and is likely talking about someone else entirely. The second passage, the Testimonium Flavianum, is less ambiguous although what it originally said is still a matter of much debate and the entire passage may have been added as well. No matter what the passage has been extensively changed by the Christian monks who copied it. There may be a nucleus of something Josephus wrote, that a man named Jesus was executed by Pilate, but nothing in the passage should be considered a primary source since Josephus is clearly writing about events before his birth and that he is reporting at best third hand.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 9:54:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen you did attack people who defend science. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Two problems arise coincident with the effort to oppose religion. The first is that it all too commonly manifests in attacks on persons; as deluded, ignorant, hallucinating, or worse. The second is that religion, qua religion, is not opposed to science. So while the effort enjoys styling itself as a noble endeavor in the service of all that is good and true, it is in practice more often than not just a self-serving excuse for running around making shit up and insulting people. If you feel that description applies to you, who am I to argue. [:)] K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 12:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen you did attack people who defend science. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Two problems arise coincident with the effort to oppose religion. The first is that it all too commonly manifests in attacks on persons; as deluded, ignorant, hallucinating, or worse. The second is that religion, qua religion, is not opposed to science. So while the effort enjoys styling itself as a noble endeavor in the service of all that is good and true, it is in practice more often than not just a self-serving excuse for running around making shit up and insulting people. If you feel that description applies to you, who am I to argue. [:)] K. You meant it to apply to everyone who defends science as shown by your next sentence. quote: Kudos for being specific. Unfortunately, you are the exception. Now are you done trying to weasel out of what you wrote or not?

PeonForHer -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 4:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Like, for instance, in researching what it feels like to fall in love? I think that's been covered. [:D] K. Perhaps. However if any one wishes to conduct some serious scientific research by falling in love with me, I promise to do my best to be a dispassionate object of study. [;)] On a slightly more serious, but probably more amusing note, I note that there are still claims that Godel's limits don't apply to science. I asked that question partly because it was possibly the most important matter on lots of people's minds but which at the same time doesn't lend itself to the scientific method. A half-arsed attempt to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, in short. I have a friend who is a sociologist and very much a believer in the scientific value of sociology. However, he's also a Green and Greens are very rarely entirely materialist in their outlook. There's a certain sympathy for the New Age kind of 'spirituality', at the very least. This friend, though, claims that he can take or leave most of the 'new age sensibilitiy'. He doesn't hold with astrology, nor religion of any kind (any version of paganism included) . . . but he actually does like to hug trees. He says that he learns something every time he does this. He acquires some kind of knowledge that he couldn't get any other way, he says. Note, he doesn't learn what'll happen in the future lives of his friends (cf astrology) and he doesn't learn about the 'true nature of the cosmos' (cf any of a number of pagan religions/spiritualities/whatever-pick your term). He just learns about some feelings that he can't get any other way. But maybe that's a big 'just'. He reminded me of Wordsworth's lines in 'The Tables Turned': "One impulse from a vernal wood May teach you more of man, Of moral evil and of good, Than all the sages can." Now, Wordsworth may have turned into a bit of a stuffed up Tory fart in his old age, but I do think he makes a point: that there's knowledge to be gained through feelings and senses, and feelings and senses that aren't testable in any objective way. But the thing that he and all the other Romantic poets were railing against has become a much, much bigger ogre than it was in their day. The human soul suffered inside all those dark satanic mills in the Industrial Revolution; now, though, it's almost as though it's been reduced to the most primitive possible. As an illustration: all this knowledge of feelings and senses, so important to those Romantic poets - what do we know of the evidence of it all, now, in the 21st Century? These days, even the most scientifically dimwitted of us have some idea of the difference between diesel and petrol engines - but who can confidently say that he or she knows the difference between being in love, having a crush, or just fancying someone? And who knows the difference between being furious, irate, angry - or pissed off? 'Pissed off' - a phrase that covers every feeling from incandescent with rage to miserable because the milk's gone sour. It's feeble, really. The point is that language adapts according to our knowledge-values. We value the difference between, say, particular types of engine (diesel or petrol), but we don't value feelings that much at all. If we did, we'd never use 'pissed off' for a catch-all for basically any less-than-happy feeling. Who cares about being accurate with the terms? They're just feelings. They're not knowledge - feelings don't even relate to knowledge, as such. They're just 'experiential things' - things that you 'go through', that's all. 'Get past them, get them out of the way, then learn proper knowledge' - that's the standard attitude, now. I see that you, Tweaks, and others here, set yourself against scientism. But in a really major sense scientism has already won and you've already accepted it. You use science-lingo to explain your OBE experiences and what you've said has done little to impart just how powerful those experiences have been. Really, you've already lost because you've accepted the rules of language decreed by your opponents. You always engage your opponents on their playing field. Write a frigging poem or at least a short story, for god's sake. If they can't understand it, poetically tell them to fuck off. [;)]

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 4:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Up to about 18 months ago I would have taken the position some here have taken and demanded unambiguous evidence or proof that the locus of consciousness can exist outside the body. After much reflection I came to the view that this demand was fundamentally unfair - the demand for proof becomes a demand for the impossible, and evidence of experience is dismissed as “anecdotal” (on a good day) or “hallucinations” (on a bad day) depending on the mood of the acolyte doing the dismissing (some would say arrogance). This is why I find the demand for “scientific proof’ troubling. Tweak, nobody's demanding proof. Very little of what our civilization considers scientific knowledge has been "proved". Which is why I was dumbfounded when you used proved as part of the definition of knowledge. My issue isn't even with subjective evidence, what I am saddened by is the sloppy magical thinking. You're using the same research methodology which caused our ancestors to conclude that emotions were caused by external supernatural beings and still has a troubling amount of the population convinced that their intuition is an infallible homophob. Nobody is demanding the impossible, you've been told (by multiple people) a simple test where a positive result would be found extremely compelling by the scientific community. Your positions being treated with contempt because instead of testing your claim you're engaging in special pleading backed up by personal attacks and a creationist apologetic. If your claims true it's easily testable and worth one million dollars! Go test it!!!!

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 7:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You meant it to apply to everyone who defends science as shown by your next sentence. Kudos for being specific. Unfortunately, you are the exception. There is no way what I said could be construed to apply to "everyone" who defends science. And the sentence you've lifted out of context doesn't even apply to what I said, it applies to what Vincent said. Give the fuck up. K.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 8:15:52 PM)
Alright, considering my year of birth was 1961 BCE, I saw this dude walk on water, do all kinds of crazy shit. He was the guy that introduced me to Harvey. Seriously though, it should not matter if a person does or does not believe in god. Whatever they chose to believe in that gives them comfort be it god, Buddha, Allah, the great and powerful Bob, or science. Personally I do not take the bible as the absolute word of God for one reason, he may have dictated it, but a man wrote it down, and that means a human put his or her spin on the word of God. I also believe that god talks to each of us, some call it god, some call it conscience and some call it common sense, whatever. Maybe humans created god or religion to make sense out of the world, and give them a sense of purpose. I dont know. I know I am not going to get in someone's face and browbeat them into becoming a christian. Nor am I going to call them stupid for not believing. All I ask is for the same consideration. Last year I was diagnosed with a kidney tumor that had all the signs of being cancerous. My blood tested positive for an enzyme or some compound that is indicative of cancer in the system. Kidney tumors are usually rapid growing, however since this tumor was discovered, it has not grown by any significant amount, blood tests are now inconclusive, and when I go up to Dallas next week to have the growth removed, the specialist is saying that he might not schedule me for a followup for six to eight months, not the usual three. All I know is that a friend from high school who chose to become a nun, said she would pray for my health daily. Maybe it was never a cancerous tumor, maybe it was a cyst. I dont know. Right now, I chose to believe that something might have taken an active hand in my health. People have been trying to discredit Jesus Christ for the last 2000 years, even some christian sects tried to argue against his divinity. If believing in God and a savior gives someone comfort, who has the right to try and destroy their beliefs?

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 8:16:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You meant it to apply to everyone who defends science as shown by your next sentence. Kudos for being specific. Unfortunately, you are the exception. There is no way what I said could be construed to apply to "everyone" who defends science. And the sentence you've lifted out of context doesn't even apply to what I said, it applies to what Vincent said. Give the fuck up. K. I took nothing out of context. I simply posted the very next sentence you wrote after the section you quoted. You stated Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science. That means everyone else who defends science is not an exception. You wrote you own it. Now are you done trying to weasel out of what you wrote or not?

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 8:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If believing in God and a savior gives someone comfort, who has the right to try and destroy their beliefs? Don't tell me to get back in the closet. Atheists have the same right to speak that you do. You certainly don't seem shy about advocating for your position so you have no business complaining when others do the same. If you don't think others have the right to try and destroy your beliefs than you should shut the fuck up because doing anything less is hypocritical.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 8:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I took nothing out of context. I simply posted the very next sentence you wrote after the section you quoted. You stated Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science. That means everyone else who defends science is not an exception. You wrote you own it. Of course you took the sentence out of context. In context, it is obvious I was saying that Vincent was the exception in specifying the "religious right" as opposed to "religion" and "religious people" generally. And as my objections made clear, what passes for defending science in some quarters is "all to commonly" and "more often than not" just contemptuous bile. Apparently (one might say obviously) you don't see the difference and continue to conflate the two. K.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 8:55:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If believing in God and a savior gives someone comfort, who has the right to try and destroy their beliefs? Don't tell me to get back in the closet. Atheists have the same right to speak that you do. You certainly don't seem shy about advocating for your position so you have no business complaining when others do the same. If you don't think others have the right to try and destroy your beliefs than you should shut the fuck up because doing anything less is hypocritical. I believe I addressed that point. No one has the right to try and discourage anyone's beliefs, atheist or otherwise. I am a failure at spreading the gospel, if someone says they dont want to hear it, I respond with fine, how bout the Packers, or Braves, or the Bruins. I mean there was an experiment conducted in the fifties by a biology professor that duplicated the early earth, atmosphere, primordial soup and when a charge was applied in the form of electrical sparks, the liquid did change colors, and he discovered that the experiment yielded amino acids. Not quite life, but the start on that road to life. Do I believe the universe was created in seven days, no. Nor do I believe that the universe is only six thousand years old. Science has proven both those beliefs wrong, but in my opinion, science does not disprove god, even if some fundamentalists want to ignore the facts, that is their trip. If you are an atheist, more power to you. Believe or dont believe, it does not matter to me. The way I interpret the bible, if you live a good life, even if you dont believe, you are not going to be condemned to hell, you might have to watch a thousand years of reality tv, but you end up in heaven anyway. If I am wrong, I will never know it. If you are wrong, it really doesnt matter, odds are, considering your posts on certain subjects, you will end up in the heaven, or not, depends if there really is a god. However, I would ask you to consider the possibility there is a god if one thing happens, if the cubs go to and win the world series, that might constitute a miracle of divine order, since it has been 94 years since the won a world series, of course it has been 50 years since the rangers even got to the world series, so that might be a miracle as well. Other than that, short of a booming voice from the heavens, believe what you want. If you hear a booming voice from the heavens in the company of others that heard it to, before declaring a belief, make damn sure it aint some blimp covered with meta material and some smart ass with a high powered pa system.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 9:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I took nothing out of context. I simply posted the very next sentence you wrote after the section you quoted. You stated Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science. That means everyone else who defends science is not an exception. You wrote you own it. Of course you took the sentence out of context. In context, it is obvious I was saying that Vincent was the exception in specifying the "religious right" as opposed to "religion" and "religious people" generally. And as my objections made clear, what passes for defending science in some quarters is "all to commonly" and "more often than not" just contemptuous bile. Apparently (one might say obviously) you don't see the difference and continue to conflate the two. K. How could it possibly be out of context. You quoted your entire reply except that sentence and I simply added it back. You specified Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science not what you now claim.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 9:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You specified Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science not what you now claim. The problem you face here is that everyone can read the post you're talking about, and decide for themselves whether it's defending the religious right and calling everybody who defends science the bad guys, or whether you're just making shit up. K.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 9:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You specified Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science not what you now claim. The problem you face here is that everyone can read the post you're talking about. [:D] K. After reading the post in question, I agree, K, you did not attack all who attack religion, you stated very accurately what is all too common. People attack religion based on science be it biology, geology, physics or whatever. I have seen people attack religion and those who believe in religion as if they are deluded, stupid or whatever. I have never once said someone is wrong for not believing, I have always advocated people should do what they think best. If there is a god and they live a good life, as I read the bible they will make it to heaven, unless they are steelers fans, then they go to Newark for a thousand years. If they are right and there is no god, I will never know, since by that belief, I die, I decompose and the energy that was once my mind goes elsewhere, simple laws of physics energy can not be created or destroyed, it just changes form. If there is truth in reincarnation, I want to come back as an egotistical son of a bitch who happens to be very good looking, because it seems they get all the really hot looking ladies who seem to like being treated like crap. This time around I was the nice guy who was always there and got friendzoned more often than not. Or I would settle on having the wisdom of K, the good looks of Brad Pitt just a little taller and more muscles, like my army days more or less, and the wealth equivalent of the Saudi Royal family.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 10:26:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer You always engage your opponents on their playing field. Write a frigging poem or at least a short story, for god's sake. If they can't understand it, poetically tell them to fuck off. The contentiousness between science and religion is entirely contrived. On the one hand, we have people who refuse to credit anything that conflicts with their creedal belief in scriptural literalism, and on the other hand we have people who refuse to credit anything that conflicts with their creedal belief in physical scientism. What's the difference? In my opinion, the one view has nothing to do with religion, though it pleases its proponents to label it "religious," and the other has nothing to do with science, though it pleases its proponents to label it "scientific." In the end, both science and religion will survive the current outbreak of Witch Trials. K.

HoneyBears -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/7/2013 11:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If believing in God and a savior gives someone comfort, who has the right to try and destroy their beliefs? Don't tell me to get back in the closet. Atheists have the same right to speak that you do. You certainly don't seem shy about advocating for your position so you have no business complaining when others do the same. If you don't think others have the right to try and destroy your beliefs than you should shut the fuck up because doing anything less is hypocritical. I believe I addressed that point. No one has the right to try and discourage anyone's beliefs, atheist or otherwise. I am a failure at spreading the gospel, if someone says they dont want to hear it, I respond with fine, how bout the Packers, or Braves, or the Bruins. I mean there was an experiment conducted in the fifties by a biology professor that duplicated the early earth, atmosphere, primordial soup and when a charge was applied in the form of electrical sparks, the liquid did change colors, and he discovered that the experiment yielded amino acids. Not quite life, but the start on that road to life. Do I believe the universe was created in seven days, no. Nor do I believe that the universe is only six thousand years old. Science has proven both those beliefs wrong, but in my opinion, science does not disprove god, even if some fundamentalists want to ignore the facts, that is their trip. If you are an atheist, more power to you. Believe or dont believe, it does not matter to me. The way I interpret the bible, if you live a good life, even if you dont believe, you are not going to be condemned to hell, you might have to watch a thousand years of reality tv, but you end up in heaven anyway. If I am wrong, I will never know it. If you are wrong, it really doesnt matter, odds are, considering your posts on certain subjects, you will end up in the heaven, or not, depends if there really is a god. However, I would ask you to consider the possibility there is a god if one thing happens, if the cubs go to and win the world series, that might constitute a miracle of divine order, since it has been 94 years since the won a world series, of course it has been 50 years since the rangers even got to the world series, so that might be a miracle as well. Other than that, short of a booming voice from the heavens, believe what you want. If you hear a booming voice from the heavens in the company of others that heard it to, before declaring a belief, make damn sure it aint some blimp covered with meta material and some smart ass with a high powered pa system. Wow. We feel like we stumbled into a hornet's nest with this thread. jlf1961, you conducted yourself with dignity and aplomb, the way an authentic, non-poser Dom should. (Seems like the words "true" and "real" are outlawed in and around the BDSM community.) Btw, best wishes for a successful outcome with your upcoming medical and/or surgical procedures. Someone needs to teach somebody some manners and a lesson on how to treat his elders with respect. All the cerebral jockeying in the world will not save him from himself. Reminds us of the movie "Titanic" in more ways than one. Somebody's grandfather shoved women and children aside to climb into a lifeboat to save his own neck. cough4sshatcough

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/8/2013 1:40:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You specified Vincent was the exception to your attack on those who defend science not what you now claim. The problem you face here is that everyone can read the post you're talking about. [:D] K. After reading the post in question, I agree, K, you did not attack all who attack religion, you stated very accurately what is all too common. People attack religion based on science be it biology, geology, physics or whatever. I'd like to know how you got that? In the post he highlights that Vincent is talking about the religious right and then proceeds to slam all defenders of science.

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375