Do You Have a Thinking Problem? by canttakesky

This is the problem right here. This debate is not about logic, as some wish to frame it. It is about an assessment of truth. SimonWho wants you believe that only his truth is logical, not CTS, because he wants you to believe that only his truth is right.

Everyone holds certain ideas to be indisputable. Concepts based on faith are the foundations of truth. In mathematics, they are called postulates. And logic flows from these.

Many of you, including HK and Citizen, have claimed to have undeniable “psychic” experiences, of which you cannot prove or even provide evidence of. These ideas are set forth axiomatically, not proven; they’re based on faith. They are essentially religion. So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers. Now we should eliminate words like “god,” “belief” or “faith,” because these are the words CTS uses to define her postulated notions of reality. Doing so, thereby silences CTS and reinforces HK postulated notions of reality.

The truth is that none of us have a mandate on the truth. None of us have complete knowledge of the universe. None of us can say for sure that what he or she sees or experiences or knows is the real universe or just how he or she is interpreting it. This is something that has caused Quantum theorist a lot of problems, and has led Quantum mechanics to presume that the universe does not exist independent of our thoughts. What does it mean to “know” something? That’s the problem here, not logic.

I think some of you need to learn to open your minds to the greater concept that the universe is not independent of your thoughts and that your notions or reality, no matter how certain you are of them, are not universal. Attempting to frame your position as one of science doesn’t make you right, because science is unable to provide answers to questions being posed here.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:16 AM

this is an impossible subject to reach any kind of consensus on..since it requires a pre-existant spiritual nature to even consider the possibility that life exists beyond the earthly physical dimension. i say study prophecy, and its fullfillment; then we shall know whether all of this was the truth or a just some cleverly fabricated lie. the bible says prophecy is the most important of gifts for this very reason; so that unbelievers will have something physical to acknowledge, to open their eyes to the possibility that history has already occurred, and been foretold by a divine force.

i think to understand prophecy, we must have a firm grasp on the true reality of global politics; which is that the world elite are lying to us about their true intentions; IMO mainstream news is not an accurate basis for prophecy

if you believe what your told, such as the governments account of 9/11, then an interpretation of end times prophecies becomes altered by all the spin and propoganda, and by this evil Islamist concept, which obviously creates in itself a different set of prophetic variables. i for one, dont use the pentagon, the white house or Fox news(1 in the same?) for the foundation of prophecy

if(as i believe) 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by elite elements of the western world, to provide a pretext for a form of global government, using America as the "engine"; then that is not only significant because of its context, but brings us right up to date on end times prophecies. the NWO agenda(as its commonly known) is the key to interpreting scriptures, because it acknowledges the role that luciferian secret societies like the freemasons have had in establishing mystery babylon(America), the instrument of the antichrists global control, and the creator of the system of the beast. the NWO conspiracy, and end times prophecies parallel eachother beyond coincidence, to the extent that i truly believe the progression of this "war on terror" agenda is an accurate guage to interpret the signs of the (end)times

if this sounds like a bunch of crap, so be it..but be aware: if 9/11 actually was orchestrated, then any event politicized for war, conquest or campaign (like this phony "war on terror") becomes suspect. it should be considered that the final war, which the antichrists rises out of, is a conflict between Israel, Persia(Iran) and their allies; a scenario shaping up right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:56 AM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers.

My religion? You'll note I have not mentioned any "psychic experiences". Indeed Citizen may well tell you how I have gleefully debunked such dreadful shows as Most Haunted (I can point you in the direction of the YouTube clips if necessary).

I've also pointed out how science shouldn't have a capital letter. I'm content for every single law, postulate and theory that has been made so far to be torn down if someone comes up with a better one.

I don't even argue there definitely isn't a God or gods so my religion isn't atheism which is sometimes held to be a religion on the grounds that it is a (lack-of)-faith based belief system.

I'm not a nihilist. I believe in beauty and truths and love and songs that makes you cry for no reason.

So if you're so sure I'm arguing my religion is better than yours, please tell me what mine is so I can know exactly why it's better than yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 11:10 AM

Jesus, Finn, what the hell are you on about? At the very least you're reading in all kinds of things to my last post. And who died and made you CTS's knight in shining armor? She's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, Mr. Non-silencer.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Many of you, including HK and Citizen, have claimed to have undeniable “psychic” experiences, of which you cannot prove or even provide evidence of. These ideas are set forth axiomatically, not proven; they’re based on faith. They are essentially religion.

If you...say so. No one can prove any experience over the internet. And you do not accept eye-witness testimony as evidence. I grant you, it ain't the strongest evidence in the world, but it is evindence.

You and science and the courts all like material evidence most of all--the smoking gun. But we're talking about stuff for which there is every likelyhood there will never be material evidence as it ain't material in nature. If you want to say that government should not be allowed to make laws about the immaterial world, or that people should not be convicted of crimes and imprisoned based on psychic information, I'm right with you. But last I checked, we were simply having a conversation here.

Quote:
So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers. Now we should eliminate words like “god,” “belief” or “faith,” because these are the words CTS uses to define her postulated notions of reality. Doing so, thereby silences CTS and reinforces HK postulated notions of reality.

WTF? Finn, you are totally off base with this stuff. Silencing CantTakeSky? Are you kidding me? I thought the words in question had been over-used on all sides and had too many clashing meanings associated with them to be of much use if our purpose here is to understand each other. So I thought it might help to try to put things another way. Feel free to disagree, but I ain't no Joe Stalin here.

And I was replying to Rue, Finn, not CTS. I thought Rue and Signy both had pretty narrow unsympathetic definitions of faith. They were suggesting that having faith in something was inherently whimsical and irrational. So I introduced the word "trust" as a way to get through to the Rues and Signys of the world. Where did you get the idea that I was attacking CTS at all?

Quote:
I think some of you need to learn to open your minds to the greater concept that the universe is not independent of your thoughts and that your notions or reality, no matter how certain you are of them, are not universal. Attempting to frame your position as one of science doesn’t make you right, because science is unable to provide answers to questions being posed here.

I hope you're not still referring to me with this, 'cause none of this applies to anything I've said. I agree with your assessment of science and absolute certainty.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jesus, Finn, what the hell are you on about? At the very least you're reading in all kinds of things to my last post. And who died and made you CTS's knight in shining armor? She's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, Mr. Non-silencer.

Who the hell said I was speaking for CTS? I spoke for myself. And I would argue that you probably couldn’t prove your psychic experiences even if you were looking me in the eye. Anymore then I could prove god to you. Or that SimonWho could prove that god isn’t beyond creation. There are simply things that are not knowable, and arguing from any direction on this requires a commitment of faith to something, whether that faith is in science, god or something less defined. And I would argue that there probably aren’t many wrong answers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 10:33 AM

SIMONWHO

Aren't many wrong answers? Most religions have their own account of the creation of the universe, in contradiction to each other. Science also postulates another theory (in fact several other theories).

They can't all be true. In fact, it's likely to be either only one or none of them are true.

This is why I can't back "faith based beliefs" - because we're expected to nod our heads and say "Well, we might all be right" when that blatantly isn't the case. I may be wrong, you may be wrong - let's not pretend otherwise.

And talking about "faith" in science is another attempt to drag rational thinking back to the dark ages. People who call evolution "an unproven theory which has many detractors" should be banned from hospitals, less they be exposed to other unproven theories such as antibiotics or brain surgery. Publicly announced hypothesises, peer review, extensive testing - these things aren't the stuff of "faith". They're a sound logical process.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
They can't all be true. In fact, it's likely to be either only one or none of them are true.

So you deduce that something you can’t possibly know is likely to be one way or another. That sounds like faith to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 11:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, you don't get any points for nit-picking words. Besides, with word-debates you end up looking like you've got nothing substantive. And then people just stop communicating with you, b/c - why bother?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 11:46 AM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
They can't all be true. In fact, it's likely to be either only one or none of them are true.
So you deduce that something you can’t possibly know is likely to be one way or another. That sounds like faith to me.

No, it's basic logic.

Theory one says God created the world in 6 days.
Theory two says Brahma creates and maintains the universe over 331 trillion years.
Theory three says Vaak created the universe millions of years ago.
Theory four says the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in three days.
Theory five says there was a big bang 10-20 billion years ago.

The above are mutually exclusive. Religions almost always set themselves up as mutually exclusive. What is the first commandment, top of the list? What is the Shahadah, the most important pillar in Islam?

It's not my faith that says they can't be right. It's what they say.

Incidentally, I've just noticed (seriously) that I have a Buddhist Wheel of Life painting opposite my bed. Please do not take this as my endorsement of any religion, it was just given to me by my parents.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 11:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

The reason why I disliked this post is b/c if you are trying to develop an argument, you're doing a really poor job. It's filled with assumptions, unstated (and untrue) equations, errors of fact, contractions ... it's difficult to figure out WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY ?

What ARE you trying to say? Can you sum it up and say it in different words?
------------------------

This is the problem right here. This debate is not about logic, as some wish to frame it. It is about an assessment of truth.

But human truth has to at least be congruent with human experience and thought; which means it must at a minimum obey logic. To show that something is not logical is to rule it out as a truth.

*

SimonWho wants you believe that only his truth is logical, not CTS, because he wants you to believe that only his truth is right.

I'm not sure I got that out of the debate. What I got was that something, which is on its face demonstrably illogical, cannot be truth.

*

Everyone holds certain ideas to be indisputable. Concepts based on faith are the foundations of truth. In mathematics, they are called postulates.

That is true. And this board has had this debate often enough that, I think, we've gone past the point of debating whether anything is real, we accept the material world as a given, and we acknowledge that human perception and conceptualization are limited. And go on from there.

*

And logic flows from these.

One would hope. But why are you mentioning logic when you seem to dimiss it at the start?

*

Many of you, including HK and Citizen, have claimed to have undeniable “psychic” experiences, of which you cannot prove or even provide evidence of.

Point of fact, I don't think Citizen has ever referenced psychic events.

*

These ideas are set forth axiomatically, not proven; they’re based on faith. They are essentially religion.

WHOA there! Nellie. On what basis do you equate a personal experience with a 'religion'? (Unless you want to get into the whole debate about reality, which I thought we'd gotten past.) Or are you trying to say that the reader is supposed to take the stories 'on faith' and treat it /them as a religion? I don't think anyone here is asking that of anyone.

*

So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers.

And now you're bringing in SimonWHo, for even less reason than Citizen, or HK.

*

Now we should eliminate words like “god,” “belief” or “faith,” because these are the words CTS uses to define her postulated notions of reality. Doing so, thereby silences CTS and reinforces HK postulated notions of reality.

What I got out of HKs posting is - we're not making headway this way, for purposes of discussion, let's try another way.

*

The truth is that none of us have a mandate on the truth. None of us have complete knowledge of the universe. None of us can say for sure that what he or she sees or experiences or knows is the real universe or just how he or she is interpreting it.

I thought the discussion on this topic had gotten there many threads ago.

*

What does it mean to “know” something? That’s the problem here, not logic.

So we ARE back to debating 'what is the nature of reality' !

*

I think some of you need to learn to open your minds to the greater concept that the universe is not independent of your thoughts and that your notions or (of ?) reality, ...

And there are theorists who think otherwise. What you say is entirely possible, but not a given.

*

... no matter how certain you are of them, are not universal.

I think anyone who supports science gets that knowledge is ONLY based on the wreckage of previous knowledge, and that it's provisional at all times. Since you are stating something obvious, I can't imagine what your point is.

*

Attempting to frame your position as one of science doesn’t make you right, because science is unable to provide answers to questions being posed here.

What questions are those?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 11:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There are simply things that are not knowable, and arguing from any direction on this requires a commitment of faith to something, whether that faith is in science, god or something less defined.

Umm... yes, in philisophy I believe they're called a priori assumptions which I referred to already. But from a philosphic veiwpoint, once you have made your a priori assumptions (yours is subjectivism) you can't jump tracks and remain logical.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 12:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey HK,

"I thought Rue and Signy both had pretty narrow unsympathetic definitions of faith."
Well FINALLY! Someone included me on a list with Signy ! I'm cracking into an exclusive club !

Anyway, that faith definition thing is probably due to my RC upbringing. And it was given as an answer to me about all sorts of contradictory teachings -

why would god condemn all those people who never even found out about Jesus? why are evil people allowed to treat other people so badly they lose their faith and go to hell? if god knows everything ahead of time, and is all powerful , how can people have free will? etc

Well, you're just supposed to TRUST in god b/c even if it seems effed up to you, god is perfect and it's all good. Remember, Jesus loves little children. And, btw, don't you DARE question god again. OK? Now go in peace my child, and never question again, or you'll go to hell.

So that to me is how 'faith' is defined. As what you believe specifically when there is no proof.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
No, it's basic logic.

Certainly some religious people may believe their point of view is true, while all others are not. We typically refer to these people as “fundamentalist.” There aren’t any fundamentalists in this discussion. How does anyone know the creation myths are mutually exclusive? How does anyone know they are wrong? Or right? We only know two things here. (1) The universe exists. (2) We have no clue how or why. The only science on the topic seems to suggest that the universe may have been created or came into existence and has existed for some finite time. None of this rules out divine creation. Science doesn’t give us much in the way of an answer to these kinds of questions. It simply doesn't know.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Incidentally, I've just noticed (seriously) that I have a Buddhist Wheel of Life painting opposite my bed. Please do not take this as my endorsement of any religion, it was just given to me by my parents.

Sure. What ever you say Dalai Lama.

I have a Cherokee Dream Catcher over my bed. Given to me by a girl I dated some years ago who was half-Cherokee.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I hope you're not still referring to me with this, 'cause none of this applies to anything I've said. I agree with your assessment of science and absolute certainty.

After some consideration, I think my initial post was poorly worded, and I may have mischaracterized your position, as a result; please accept my apologies. I’m afraid too little free-time has made it difficult for me to keep up with this debate as well as I would have liked.

If only I hadn’t spent so much time on the wonder women post, but one must keep one’s priorities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey HK,

"I thought Rue and Signy both had pretty narrow unsympathetic definitions of faith."
Well FINALLY! Someone included me on a list with Signy ! I'm cracking into an exclusive club !

Anyway, that faith definition thing is probably due to my RC upbringing. And it was given as an answer to me about all sorts of contradictory teachings -

why would god condemn all those people who never even found out about Jesus? why are evil people allowed to treat other people so badly they lose their faith and go to hell? if god knows everything ahead of time, and is all powerful , how can people have free will? etc

Well, you're just supposed to TRUST in god b/c even if it seems effed up to you, god is perfect and it's all good. Remember, Jesus loves little children. And, btw, don't you DARE question god again. OK? Now go in peace my child, and never question again, or you'll go to hell.

So that to me is how 'faith' is defined. As what you believe specifically when there is no proof.

i just want to address your comments. proof, can mean a number of things... do we have proof that the north won the civil war? thats considered a fact...even though it is more a subjective historical obvservation. so what about all of the cultures of the ancient world..as far back as is documented, reporting of "gods" and superhuman entities and encounters? apparently none of those facts matter since Darwin came along; and i think their is a fair bit of hypocracy, since evolution is to rely on a belief that Man simply evolved from apes, period; considering all of our ancestors believed differently, why arent their belifs taken into account?

also, i assume youre referring to the bible...my question is, have you ever even read the thing? i study biblical literature constantly, and yet i fail to recognize these often sighted contradictions; nor do i just shut up and believe, and trust that these so called "contradictions" are truth..

-why does God allow people to do evil things and compromise their eternal destinies? first of all, Man sins out of his own freewill; if you dont believe in God, or Satan, then what causes you to do negetive things? thats right, you. the Bible, when it says God "destined" many to be his servants, is saying that God, being omnipresent, foreknew those who would come to have faith in him. Jesus says "there is more rejoicing in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then 99 righteous who do not need to", in other words..its never too late to change, but it is
ultimately up to the individual to make the choice; which some will never do

-God does not condemn those who have never heard of Jesus! here is a quote from Romans which explains(the Law is Gods word ie, ten commandments)

" If those who are not circumscised keep the laws reguirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? the one who is not circumicised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumscision, are a lawbreaker.
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is cicumcision merely outward and physical. no, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. such a mans praise is not from men, but from God"

" All who sin apart from the law, will aslo perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law, will be judged by the law. for it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in Gods sight, but it is those who obey the Law who will be declared righteous. (indeed, when gentiles, who not have the law, do by nature things reguired by the law, they are a law for themsleves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the reguirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness)"

at the final judgement, when all the dead are raised, the book of life is opened and all men will be judged based on their merits...christians, atheists buddhists and everyone else. it is not that believers can simply claim to love Jesus, and will be pardoned; it is those who through belief, conform to the likeness of God, and attempt to overcome the desires of the flesh and the world, which is material and self seeking.

John says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. he was with God in the beginning.... The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. .. he came to that which was his own, but his own did not recieve him."

perfection did manifest, and Man could not recognize it

the Bible does say that to know Jesus, and to reject him and his message is to reject the ways of God and to condemn yourself...it is not God who condemns you. im not so dogmatic as to condemn others, because Jesus says "do not judge, or you will be judged", those who judge others are hypocritical, because we all do many of the same things. but there is one who will judge our hearts and minds, and all mens carma will be repayed to them in due time; is that a selfish warning to proclaim to people? no one is forcing you to beleive in anything

what Jesus is saying is "enter through the narrow gate. for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it"..but no one is making you do anything

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 3:16 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I am not a religious man. I am very much a thinking man. I am not comparing the two or saying that you are either one or the other. I think you could very well be one or the other, or both, or none of the above. The latter, I think, being the scariest people in the world. More often than not, I hesitate and miss out on lifes oppurtunites due to my excessive thinking. I think about everything. I think about what I do and what I don't do... and then I spend some time thinking about why I do or why I don't. I think I know everything, only to realize that I know nothing. Many nights have been spent thinking, rather than sleeping... I think I'm probaby too tired to get laid. I think it's probably been too long since I did that too. I think that the chances that there is a God of some sort are just as good as the chances that this is just all some gigantic accident. I think that Evolution and Creationism could hold hands and sing Koom-Bye-Ya together around a campfire if everybody wasn't so damn certain that their guess was right. I think that there is a lot to the whole Yin & Yang train of thought. I think that everything finds an equalibrium when the waves turn to ripples and eventually peter out into smooth perfection. I think that if there is a God of sorts, then there must be a Devil of sorts... I think that LIFE more readily imitates ART than vice versa. I think that Government and Society today are very much imitating Orwell's 1984 & and Revelations in the Good Book. I think that if there is a God and a Devil that George Bush is keeping the throne warm for the Antichrist. I think that the Real ID that he signed into action could very well be the MARK of the BEAST that is spoken of in the Bible. I think that Bush is not a religious man by any stretch, nor is he a thinking man.... and I think he will one day be remembered as the worst American President in history. I think it is sad that he is so deeply associated in the minds of the American public with Christianity. I think when people realzie what a truly bad man he was, Christianity stands a very good chance of being ridiculed even further and possibly destroyed. I think that's sad.

I am not a religious man.... but I do find a world devoid of religion to be a very scary place indeed.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 3:23 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
since evolution is to rely on a belief that Man simply evolved from apes, period;

::sighs:

Evolution does not state that humans evolved from apes. It states that humans and apes had a common ancestor many hundreds of thousand, probably more like millions of years ago.

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 3:34 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
considering all of our ancestors believed differently, why arent their belifs taken into account?

So, should we believe that the earth is flat, and is the center of the universe? Our ancestors believed that. Or, should we believe in dragons, since almost every culture on earth had myths and legends about them? And, I do mean dragons, not dinosaurs.

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 5:14 PM

which ancestors believed that the earth was flat? the greeks? the babylonians? the egyptians or sumerians? if youll recall, the ancients had a more intricate understanding of the universe then even our more recent ancestors. it was only a brief period during the middle ages that such beliefs were held, and it has become a stereotype of blind faith ever since; since the bible doesnt even say that the the earth is flat or the center of the universe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 5:27 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Well, what about dragons, then?

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 5:39 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I don't know about Dragons, but Bush has a pet Condeliza Rice that breathes fire when she's walking around in her hooker boots.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 5:50 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't know about Dragons, but Bush has a pet Condeliza Rice that breathes fire when she's walking around in her hooker boots.

::laughs::

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
which ancestors believed that the earth was flat? the greeks? the babylonians? the egyptians or sumerians? if youll recall, the ancients had a more intricate understanding of the universe then even our more recent ancestors. it was only a brief period during the middle ages that such beliefs were held, and it has become a stereotype of blind faith ever since; since the bible doesnt even say that the the earth is flat or the center of the universe.

It wasn’t even widely held during the Middle Ages. There were a small number of theologians who regarded the Earth as flat: mostly fundamentalists who rejected the classical works, but no one took them seriously and the vast majority of Middle Age Christian authors held to the classical notion of a round earth. But such detractors from the round-earth theory had always existed; they weren’t unique to the Middle Ages and hadn’t been an important voice on this matter since the pre-Classical period. The flat-earth notion that has become identified with Christian thinking actually immerged during the 19th century, well after the Middle Ages, as consequents of Victorian humanism. Another shameful example of history being twisted to suit political ambitions and misconceptions.

As far as dragons are concerned, there really isn’t a distinction between dinosaurs. We know that dinosaur fossils were probably the inspiration for dragons; the rest is imagination. And if we were to be honest with ourselves, the majority of our conception of dinosaurs today is largely imagination as well. Paleontology has allowed us to make better guess then our ancestors, but it is still wrought with assumptions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 6:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

So you're saying the world isn't flat.......

Riiiiiiiiight..... sure thing guy.

Next you'll be telling me that smoking isn't good for you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 6:57 PM

KANEMAN

Dragons did exist. They were feathered like birds, had huge wings for lift, hollow bones, and a methane bladder that aided in lift(lighter than air). That same methane bladder also allowed them to exhale fire. Some could even spit acid (It was really just their gastric fluids). They ate berries and other fruits, not humans. They got protein and fat from fish. Their eyes were crystalline, allowing dragons to see far into the night sky.

Some say they still inhabit parts of Fausagunia(I doubt that). Throughout history Man and Dragon have not been able to peacefully coexist, therefore we have lost the ancient wisdom they were going to bestow upon us. They like to share knowledge. Well, it could be true! Ever hear of Puff the magic dragon...Some try to tell me he's made-up

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 4, 2006 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So you're saying the world isn't flat.......

Riiiiiiiiight..... sure thing guy.

Next you'll be telling me that smoking isn't good for you.

If it is, NASA has some explaining to do, what with the pictures and what not.

As for the smoking thing, I honestly couldn’t tell you as a fact. I don’t smoke. Unless someone sets me on fire, then yeah, it’s probably not good for me.

Although, I don't think there is any conclusive proof that second-hand Finn is bad for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 4, 2006 3:47 AM

ZZETTA13

Thinking a lot makes me go to the bathroom.
I remember the last time I thunk'sumpin to much I found myself squatting over a toilet bowl. I started to THINK, what am I doing here? Then I began to get sick all over again. My father was a thinker, and my mother too.So it's a family problem. Don't be hard on yourself. There's plenty of ppl in government that want you to be a non-thinker like themselves. Just remember WE at FFfan.net are here for you.

Z

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 4, 2006 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There are simply things that are not knowable, and arguing from any direction on this requires a commitment of faith to something, whether that faith is in science, god or something less defined.

Hey, Finn.

Sorry for getting a little hysterical with you in my last post.

To whom it may concern: anyone want to freak HK out just tell him he's trying to silence people and force his "religion" on others.

I think our argument, Finn, is over where the threshold of the unknowable lies. I think it's a little farther off than you do. There is a lot in the West that is considered unknowable that is common knowledge around the world.

Life after death, for instance. That some aspect of us exists beyond death in some manner or other, is knowable and perceptible, I think. I'm not talking about faith (please, hear that), I'm talking about near death experiences, past life recall, messages from the dead. These are all things I've witnessed and experienced myself. Confirmation of past life experience can be very difficult, but folks have done it over the centuries. (BTW, prolly the quickest way to unsettle your don't know/can't know point of view would be to undergo past-life regression.)

The Christian Church has put out enormous effort over the centuries to demonize and marginalize anything that interferes with their own hierarchical vision of the Universe. Christianity, in the guise of the "one true way," has succeeded in destroying many of the ways human beings have had of genuinely connecting to their world. It's a great irony to me, that Western Scientific Materialism is a definitively Post-Christian ideology grown out of the Church's own pro-Western bigotry and spiritual hegemony.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 4, 2006 9:01 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

I'm pink therefore I'm Spam.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 4, 2006 9:13 PM

Heya, antimason, I've been meaning to reply to you on several threads now, but you're so prolific (the entire board is on fire with controversy of late), that I can't seem to formulate my ideas before you (and everyone else) are onto the next topic. I'm not complaining! It's great to be part of such a vital online community!

So anyway, some thoughts...

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i just want to address your comments. proof, can mean a number of things... do we have proof that the north won the civil war? thats considered a fact...even though it is more a subjective historical obvservation. so what about all of the cultures of the ancient world..as far back as is documented, reporting of "gods" and superhuman entities and encounters?

As I was saying to Finn, the Church was way into "debunking" ancient cultures' views of the devine and the "superhuman" long before modern science. A lot of what ancient cultures had to say about the divine contradicts the Bible; why, a lot of the Bible contradicted the Bible until they had the Council of Nicaea (on a related tangent, in your estimation, who were the people Cain settled among and where did they come from?).

Quote:
apparently none of those facts matter since Darwin came along; and i think their is a fair bit of hypocracy, since evolution is to rely on a belief that Man simply evolved from apes, period; considering all of our ancestors believed differently, why arent their belifs taken into account?

I've often wondered this myself. If I read the same, or very similar stories from entirely disperate sources, I tend to grant the story some credibility--maybe not in the details, but enough to acknowledge that there's something there at least, you know? Some specific phenomenon people in different places all experienced. Take sacrificing animals to the gods. How many cultures throughout the world have practiced some form of this? What the heck for? On the face of it, this is a very, very strange practice. But human beings throughout history and around the world have found meaning in this.

Seems to me, particularly in matters of religion, imagination must take a back seat to survival. Seems to me there must have been a set of circumstances world wide that lead people to believe in their gods and treat them the way they did. What circumstances were these? Sure, we can dismiss it all as "primitive psychology" but I'm not a big fan of simply dismissing whole cultures, so I wonder if there wasn't something more to it.

Same with something as ostensibly kooky as Bigfoot. There's got to be something there, some focus around which these stories have developed. What that is, I got no idea, but to simply cry "hoax" seems to be missing the point. It speaks more to the debunker's poor opinion of human nature (given the number of lying and/or clueless people needed to perpetuate these "hoaxes") than about the validity of the many witnesses' claims, don't you think?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 3:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey Anti- I'm curious- sicne you quote the Bible extensively... What do you think of the Gospel of Thomas
www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

the Gospel of Judas
www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document_nf.html

and the Dead Sea scrolls?
www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 5:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't understand where Anti is coming from. Like Bush et al, how can you claim a religion as yours if you pick and chose those parts you believe?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 6:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't understand where Anti is coming from. Like Bush et al, how can you claim a religion as yours if you pick and chose those parts you believe?

Because Anti knows what the one true faith is, and everyone else is out of step?

Now, I happen to like what Anti says much of the time. The religion I grew up with (John XXIII Catholicism) emphasized love, humility, and sincerity as the major part of the teachings of Jesus. "Blessed are the peacemakers" "The greatest of these is love..." "And the young man turned away sad..." "Give him also your shirt..." "Let he who is without sin..." "My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers."
It's very clear that Bush and the Christofascists stay away from the New Testament as if it would burn their fingers.

But like all matters of faith there is no way of proving that the Bible is the Word of God, or that any one's intepretation is truer than anyone else's. Just 'cause I find it congenial doesn't mean it's true.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 7:03 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Take sacrificing animals to the gods. How many cultures throughout the world have practiced some form of this? What the heck for? On the face of it, this is a very, very strange practice. But human beings throughout history and around the world have found meaning in this.

Two guy sitting on a hill, 6300 BC.
"Hey Al, there's those dark clouds comin' again."

"Yeah, looks like trouble."

"One of da Gods. They're pissed again. Seen it before."

"Someone's gonna get killed. HEY- Mikey, ya know that freakin' bull that gored me last year? Let's kill it and specifically proclaim it to be 'FOR THE GODS', if somethin's gotta go, why not that thing? I still got a scar and everything!"

"You mean fool the Gods?"

"Naw, just placate 'em is all."

"Hey Al....whutz 'placate' mean?"

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 8:01 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's very clear that Bush and the Christofascists stay away from the New Testament as if it would burn their fingers.

Or shift the importance to Paul which, given his overt misogyny, is perhaps unsurprising. In my own opinion, the writings of Paul and the dreamings of John have become much more important in certain circles than the teachings of Jesus.

I wanted to chime in a bit on the debate in this thread.

It's not surprising to me that there is an antagonism towards science from some organized religions, especially the denominations that dominate American Christianity. I see it as push back. And it reminds me of the push back against attempts to lessen white privilege.

I don't feel it's too much of a stretch to state that the work of the engineer (working from the playbook drawn up by the scientist) has cut into the traditional work of the religious leader. You used to build the structure and bless it. Now you design it using the current state of knowledge as discovered by scientists (and bless it after the fact, if you are so inclined). As more and more areas of endeavor are purposefully designed, less and less areas of endeavor fall under the control of the church. So they're understandably pissed. If you had centuries and millenia of control that was gradually being weakened, you would be pissed too.

I'm trying to not write too much since I'm short on time so I'm sure this isn't too clear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 8:17 AM

SIGNYM- if i may be perfectly honost, i have yet to make up my mind what my opinion is regarding the gnostic books related to the bible. my views regarding traditional church history are constantly changing as i uncover more heretical and conspiratorial plots to subvert and pervert Jesus' original messages. what i know of gnosticism mainly comes from my study of the occult, and luciferian doctrines; i dont doubt there is some truth among the gnostic scriptures, but i am hesitant to fully accept their authenticity, since Lucifer was present from the beginning and gives knowledge beneficial to his servants; ultimately it is an area i havent pursued as vigorously as others, so i dont yet have any real revelations to bring to the table unfortunately.. but as you all know, i dont exactly have a monopoly on the truth, so that should come as no suprise. what is your opinion?

as for the Dead Sea scrolls, i give an enormous amount of credibility to them, not only because they verify the accuracy of many of the early gospels, but other books found such as Enoch provide the pretext for the appearance of Jesus aswell as his second coming; and include much more indepth the events of Gen. 6 (the fallen angels and their original interference with Man). i consider the DSS to be invalubale, since they provide the context to prophecies which tradional Jews have seemingly missed or avoided, which are wholly relevant to the nature of prochecy and the coming judgement

what is your opinion though? i am always open to new information

HK- i am leaning towards the belief that Cain was the offspring of Lucifer, or Satan and Eve in the garden of Eden; and that Cains bloodline would become the ruling elite through the centuries, which currently make up the 13 bloodlines of the illuminati. whats interesting is that this concept is supported by Enoch, and Gen 6, as both speak of angelic beings interbreeding with man and creating the nephilim, or hyrib offspring, who were responsible for such reckless knowledge and wrath that God sent the deluge upon the ancient world to rid it of its influences. this is a controversial view no doubt, but it seems to fit well with the question of what exactly Moses is referring to as the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil", since merely "eating" of it caused our fall from immoratility. now, i can refer you to some links which share this view and can go more in depth than i can presently, but i personally am still putting the peices of the puzzle together http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Cain+13+bloodlines+of+the+ill
uminati+&btnG=Search

ill tell you... the line of reseach im pursuing now envolves America, Mystery Babylon, and the apostate church of the end times which endorses and supports a false image of Christ, or the antiChrist. i was discussing this last night with my mother, and it seems to me that the nation of Israel that exists today is the zionist(false) Israel, which will fall(along with Babylon) for and support the antiChrist and his diception, and will persecute the true followers of Jesus' during the tribulation. i believe America and Israel became bedfellows for this very reason; America, founded by luciferian societies, becomes Babylon, which gives rise to the system of the beast, a world economy/religion/government following this final war(ww3/gog/magog), of which the antiChrist rises out of to sign a treaty ensuring Israels safety for 7 years( which is broken 3 1/2 years later). and theres more, but this is becoming longer then i had hoped..i wish i could have answered your questions better, but as i said i am still learning; what i key in on is the occult NWO/conspiracy, which i believe are the Jews of the synogogue of Satan, actively fullfilling the fruition of the kingdom of antiChrist, and the subsequent data which falls in line with this premise (that is my "secret"..nothing more)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 8:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anti -

There are a few things you post to which I say in complete sincerity - AMEN!

Along with Signy, I find an appalling absence of the teachings of Christ among so-called Christians. As I heard it put, their religion is the religion ABOUT Christ - the blessed baby, the righteous vindictive king of heaven and earth; rather than the religion OF Christ - the practice of love, forgiveness, humility, peace. (Except for that 'faith' thing by which I was terrorized as a very young child, the church I was brought up in stressed good things like love, acceptance, humility, generosity. And it preached against greed, anger, hate, vengeance, pride, etc.)

Then you say things that make you sound like a religious PN. That's where you lose me. Plus your circular reasoning is pretty circular!

The Bible is the word of god! That's why I trust it. How do you know it's the word of god?? Well, it says so, here in the Bible! :crossed eyes: hunhhh ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 9:37 AM

Rue brother- ill agree, i argue within a fair degree of circular logic; i just feel it is an unfortunate neccessity to interpreting anything regarding the bible. ill be perfectly honost, there is a part of me, which grows continuously through my research, that says "if God does exist, then maybe by some miracle we were allowed to recieve a version of his word that was sufficient to grasp the collective message which is presented in the bible". just as an example, the Adam Weishops Illuminati was officially exposed when a rider, delivering a kind of manifesto, was struck by lightening, a freak incident, and the documents were uncovered by officials; what are the odds this would happen? but how neccessary was to uncovering the plot to create a NWO? its kind of an anecdotel example..but thats how i feel about the version of the Bible that we recieved. i fully understand that faith plays an enormous role in this concept, but if the bible, as we all know it, were false, or crucially skewed, what chance would we have had throughout history to recognize Gods profound truths and prophetic enlightenments? after all, the purpose of Gods covenant with Abraham was to re-introduce the belief in an all powerful creator God...if this message was never recieved, how could God expect us to decipher the reality of our existence? that aside, i find that the Bible in its current form is sufficient in exposing what i consider to be the true conspiracy, which is lucifers diception through heretical concepts to introduce his rule over Man and earth. not that i dont believe other books are worthy of study, but the bible for practical reasons couldnt hold all 500 associated books and scriptures. ill also acknowledge that im kind of an extremist like PN(whom i havent seen around in awhile?)..but i hope in a good way, if at all possible

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 1:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
if the bible, as we all know it, were false, or crucially skewed, what chance would we have had throughout history to recognize Gods profound truths and prophetic enlightenments?

Huh... How to begin? Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible might not just be a wee bit tweaked but completely false at it's core? That everything you THINK you know... about God, the Bible, Lucifer.... is completely and ruinously wrong?

How does one demonstrate that the Bible refers to anything consequential at all? Maybe this particular book at best describes the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of goatherders. Maybe God's a "she". Maybe there are more than one. Maybe they're mean, jealous, and abritrary and can only be placated by lots and lots of blood. Maybe there is none at all.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 1:18 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe they're mean, jealous, and abritrary and can only be placated by lots and lots of blood.

We can only hope

Quote:
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

The funny part is that you had this sig before the arguement started.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 1:24 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's very clear that Bush and the Christofascists stay away from the New Testament as if it would burn their fingers.

I heard somebody say one time that if all you believed in was the Old Testament that it meant you were Jewish, no ifs ands or buts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 1:48 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i just want to address your comments. proof, can mean a number of things... do we have proof that the north won the civil war? thats considered a fact...even though it is more a subjective historical obvservation.

We destroyed their military, we conquered their territory. By the standards of history that means we won. Now the fact that many people in the South prefer to believe that the Civil War is still going on is not much different from a Frenchman disliking Germany because of WW1 and 2 (and all the other times too). It's just a little more pronounced because we are supposed to be one united country.

Quote:
so what about all of the cultures of the ancient world..as far back as is documented, reporting of "gods" and superhuman entities and encounters?

Attempts to explain natural phenomena that defied the knowledge of the day. We understand now how lightning works, we can produce lightning at will therefore we no longer atribute it to the gods. We understand how viri and bacteria work, we understand genetic mutation, we understand the seasons, we no longer need to explain these using supernatural terms so the old gods and supernatural encounters have fallen by the wayside.

Quote:
apparently none of those facts matter since Darwin came along; and i think their is a fair bit of hypocracy, since evolution is to rely on a belief that Man simply evolved from apes, period; considering all of our ancestors believed differently, why arent their belifs taken into account?

First off, you are wrong, as someone here said apes and humans came from a common ancestor (and if you go back farther most mammals came from one or two ancestors), we did not come from apes. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawlins for an education on evolution.

As to why our ancestors beliefs aren't taken into account on the matter, simple: their beliefs are not substantiated by any reputable science, Darwin is. Our ancestors believed that lightning bolts were thrown by Zues or Thor (or was it Odin?) whenever and wherever they felt like, we know now that they were wrong.

Quote:
-why does God allow people to do evil things and compromise their eternal destinies? first of all, Man sins out of his own freewill; if you dont believe in God, or Satan, then what causes you to do negetive things? thats right, you.

But if I've never had the chance to read the bible then I don't know what is wrong, I don't know that I'm not suposed to work on Sunday, I don't know that I'm not allowed to make an idol of god. If God hasn't put a bible in my hands and given me the means to read it I don't know what's right and wrong according to god.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think our argument, Finn, is over where the threshold of the unknowable lies. I think it's a little farther off than you do. There is a lot in the West that is considered unknowable that is common knowledge around the world.

It’s probably true that you do put the threshold out much further then I do for certain things, but I think it is also true that you do not apply it objectively. Your tolerance for supernatural concepts is higher where the perceived association with Western philosophies is small, such as Christianity. You have made an effort to discredit Christian belief by pointing to what you call its “pro-Western bigotry,” even attempting to align scientific materialism with “Christian ideology,” which is completely at odds with history. However, I don’t draw a distinction here. I don’t view one person’s unprovable supernatural concept necessarily superior to another, because of cultural or religious distinctions. I don’t say that Christianity is more “real” then Islam, Buddhism or a host of other religions. And I don’t believe that any such distinction between what is known can be made between the Eastern and the Western philosophies. Concepts like psychic powers are Western in origin, going back to Greek, Roman and Celtic religious practices. Although the way they are thought of today is a product of the 19th century.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Your tolerance for supernatural concepts is higher where the perceived association with Western philosophies is small, such as Christianity. You have made an effort to discredit Christian belief by pointing to what you call its “pro-Western bigotry,” even attempting to align scientific materialism with “Christian ideology,” which is completely at odds with history. However, I don’t draw a distinction here. I don’t view one person’s unprovable supernatural concept necessarily superior to another, because of cultural or religious distinctions. I don’t say that Christianity is more “real” then Islam, Buddhism or a host of other religions. And I don’t believe that any such distinction between what is known can be made between the Eastern and the Western philosophies. Concepts like psychic powers are Western in origin, going back to Greek, Roman and Celtic religious practices. Although the way they are thought of today is a product of the 19th century.

Finn, I know you're an historian, but I dare say that you haven't studied the history of paranormal phenomena very widely or deeply, if this is what you think.

Psychic awareness is by no means "Western in origin." Where did you get that idea? Nor is it "non-Western," except to the degree that we here in the West, more than any other culture in the world, have the peculiar need to discredit and discount people's actual experiences in favor of abstract principles and dogma. Shamanistic practices which incorporate everything you might construe as "psychic" have been part of cultures across the globe including that of the ancient celts (I'm not using "Western" to make a literal geographical distinction, however; I'm talking about Western Culture and Occidental Tradition which does take in the Ancient Greeks but is dominated by Judeo-Christian tradition).

In this context, the "West" does not exist in binary opposition to the "East," but to all things "non-Western." In this context, Christianity and scientific materialism are both part of a Western tradition. The Enlightenment was a specifically Western historical moment brought about by the excesses of Christian Theocracy.

Nonetheless, both Christianity as practiced and the modern scientific mindset have a powerful colonial bent; debunking aboriginal science where ever they find it. Both modern scientific materialists and the Church have been greatly concerned with worldy power, though Science is by far more honest about it. And I'm not so much concerned with "Christian belief" as I am with Christian practice.

You say that my "tolerance for supernatural concepts is higher where the perceived association with Western philosophies is small." Firstly, whatever tolerance I have for what you would concider supernatural is born out of my experiences. I don't believe in a supernatural, I find it insulting, mostly. "The supernatural" was originally a Christian concept to describe their god that exists "outside of nature." Christians and scientists both happily use the term to trump each other in this endless agon between "science" and "religion."

My experience has shown me that certain phenomena which both sides of that debate consider supernatural are not (e.g.: so-called spirits and precognition). But certain other phenomena which y'all consider supernatural may very well be nothing but supernatural (e.g.: the Pearly Gates and the Lake of Fire).

For instance, if a Christian told me that Jesus spoke to them through the television set, I wouldn't discount the experience because of its Christian gloss. I wouldn't rule out that some non-corporial "spirit" spoke to this person as I have observed such things happening. Nor even would I discount that it was a message from that level of mind folks in the New Age like to call "Christ consciousness," but I'd be very interested at that point in what this person's Jesus told them. I am very interested in personal experience and practice, and largely uninterested in, and unsatisfied with dogma of any kind.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
if the bible, as we all know it, were false, or crucially skewed, what chance would we have had throughout history to recognize Gods profound truths and prophetic enlightenments?
Huh... How to begin? Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible might not just be a wee bit tweaked but completely false at it's core? That everything you THINK you know... about God, the Bible, Lucifer.... is completely and ruinously wrong?

How does one demonstrate that the Bible refers to anything consequential at all? Maybe this particular book at best describes the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of goatherders. Maybe God's a "she". Maybe there are more than one. Maybe they're mean, jealous, and abritrary and can only be placated by lots and lots of blood. Maybe there is none at all.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

it has occurred to me that the bible was false...actually, i grew up, like everyone here im sure, being told that its merely some fanciful story meant to control people; ive certainly heard that all the different spin and propoganda before. the problem is that history ultimately does not support that premise. have you sincerely ever considered that it may be true? because suddenly all the volumes of occult knowledge, which is INSEPERABLE from the PROVEN NWO agenda, which is occurring as we speak, certainly counts as evidence to support the bibles claims. that is why i believe the bible is accurate...as i said, that was an anecdotel example, out of faith..but i have plently of historical incidents which i feel are foretold prophetically in the bible, which i reference constantly. it would be one thing if you couldnt tie the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers to the Illuminati, but you can; seeing as how they own the worlds central Banks, and the Banks run the world..it is not too far a stretch to make the connections here

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 7:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
the problem is that history ultimately does not support that premise. have you sincerely ever considered that it may be true? because suddenly all the volumes of occult knowledge, which is INSEPERABLE from the PROVEN NWO agenda, which is occurring as we speak, certainly counts as evidence to support the bibles claims.

The problem is that these people you point to have had the script for the last couple of millennia. People are not above using the bible to their own ends ! We've seen this ad nauseam. All they have to do is find a convenient paradigm to plug into and crank their agenda for all it's worth. That to me doesn't speak to god's universal power. I would find this more convincing if, suddenly, isolated Indonesians started following the script. THEN you'd have my attention.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 8:12 AM

the bible can be used as a tool, such as Bush is doing, by using false doctrines to rile up a voter base which votes almost entirely upon party(perceived-religious) lines; ill grant that. only that does not make it an accurate interpretation of Jesus' message, nor does the bible condone such actions. the bible does not support their agenda to create a global fascist oligarchy..it is opposed to it; so im not sure how the bible benefits them in a way akin to it being a manufactured political divice. the bible warns us of this agenda, and tells us to oppose it with love and Gods word.

if im wrong, give me a better explanation as to why their are world elites who are admitted members of occult societies? if the bible is a fairy tell, why do they worship lucifer? honostly, i wanna know.... what are the odds that so many prominant American officials, including our last 2 presidential candidates, were member of the order of death? if it is all just fun and games, why is it all soo secretive; why wont the elite allow independant press inside Bohemian grove, or the Bilderberg conferences? why would masonry go to such lengths to actually incorporate idolatrous imagery into their heritages? i am never given good reasons for this.

if you want to argue that worshipping Lucifer does not mean he actually exists, then that is a seperate arguement(that neither of us can prove, as the creation debates tend to go). but then i think its strange that the people who actually run the world behind the scenes, the elite bloodlines and institutions, hold such Satanic idealogical beliefs..just as the bible states.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 8:41 AM