|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2007-06-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Too good to pass up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dyl0j3WU6Y Oh yeah, Jesus is depicted as having long hair (God topic). I don’t believe this to be historically correct because it reflects the practices of later Europeans, but what the heck, in the movies he often also has blue eyes.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-06-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Like the song, "Hair" but let’s substitute the word "flaws", as in "Give me a head with flaws, long beautiful flaws...". For those of you who remember the song from the musical (I’m so aged). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_%28musical%29 Maybe this should go on the "pot" forum instead.

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Fun seems to define flaw, or vice versa.

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Just like critiquing poetry lol. And opinions in general =) But isn’t it fun?

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	And what is subjective is free, therein has the capacity to act upon their righteousness. Ergo the flaw of subjectivity.

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"It seems that someone does not want you to know" No, it’s not that; it’s just the fact that it’s a subjective thing for anyone: what is false to one person is very true for another.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-06-11 |
Subject	5 & 6
Message	I have tried to answer that several times and have been "blocked" from getting that message through. (Really!) It seems that someone does not want you to know, but I have faith that you can figure it out. Think, "Is he a good lion, or a bad lion?" Seek and you shall find: Jesus + lion (the other guy) + lion

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	1. I think this Golden Rule is prevalent for a lot of people’s way of life, their moral/ethical outlook. Pretty simple, really. And it’s something I’ve always subscribed to. 4. Yes. Well put. 5 and 6. But how is one to know, really? Rhetorical question. 7. Again, yes.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-06-08 |
Subject	Why "bother"?
Message	1. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 2. One Commandment of Jesus: "Love one another." 2. The Holy Bible: Satan is real, demons are real, the lake of fire "hell" and the prospect of eternal punishment is real. 3. The other commandment of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission 4. General Statement: We love you, would much rather see you with us in Heaven, and are just doing as we’ve been told by the Lord. Unfortunately, it may be that some "Christians" mistake this as as opportunity to condemn rather than an opportunity to serve. It is not our place to judge, only to love. 5. All should learn to recognize false doctrine, or "why I write the way I do": 2Cr 11:12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 2Cr 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 2Cr 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2Cr 11:15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. 6. In every church you will find at least one demon. Perhaps even behind the pulpit. It serves one well to learn to recognize them. 7. When not welcomed, we are told to just "shake the dust from your sandels" and leave such matters to God. What is offered is a gift which can either be received or rejected. Life is about the choices you make.

User	rouge wave | 2007-06-08 |
Subject	.
Message	Hey Jase, “They came to the conclusion that certain psychotropic substances were no different in outcome to priests who had experienced God through prayer and meditation (this was another test). I know this is slightly off-tangent, but it’s an example of how certain parts of the brain identify with these mystic urges.” ^ That’s a pretty good test. And to discredit this scientific view a bit (in proving the existence or relevance of God on reality), they also showed that people who were on crack and were in love had the same parts of the brain lit up. Brain science is fantastical and very, very complicated at times (at least the understanding of the brain can be), but each passing day they, the neurologists, state that they are gaining more and more knowledge on the matter. And I think that is the most important notion in humanity: progress. (And the conclusion that God can be shown to exist through science was just a big serving of cake, not really my main point, which is why I put it in parenthesis. That’s just the implication the book drew from such an experiment – I would argue that it no more defines what the existence of God is as the test for crack- and in-love does to people.)(I don’t agree with a lot of what the quantum physics people are trying to convey. They seem to be semi-mystical themselves in some of the things they claim about what science can explain.) Hey H K, “It is just like arguing over which is the best: Vanilla, or Chocolate, or strawberry.... None are wrong, just different flavors to accommodate different tastes.” Strawberries and cream, and Cadbury eggs. End of discussion. (Ha ha, if only it were that easy.) It is all about the ’different tastes’ around the world that make up different societies, and whatever helps the society thrive/survive (a Darwinian way of looking at it I suppose). (And can we argue that the intellect is our evolutionary terms of survival?) One example of accommodation of the tastes is how a certain on-land mammal, since there was quite an abundance of the animal, became categorized as a ’fish’ so that the religious followers were allowed to eat it. (I really forget the name of the animal and the location, but I think it was near Mexico and some type of animal like a prairie dog.) ^ “Exactly! But some people want to impose their beliefs upon others, often to the detriment of everyone involved and not necessarily involved.” (Alteredlife) Some of these peoples’ religions require that the pursue their mannerisms in such a way. Johovas think that only 1,000 people will get in to Heaven so they have to recruit/tell as many as possible so that the ones that are supposed to get in (some kind of chose) do get in; and Buddhists, mainly, try not to impose their beliefs on others but promote peace/tolerance and such (from my broad understanding of their religion); and if you had time to watch that ’Jesus Camp’ movie any time, the little girl in it goes up to people throughout the movie asking them “Do you think you’ll go to heaven when you die?” and they’ll say “Yes” and she’ll be like, “Really?” in a condescending tone... the end of the movie is best where she goes up to a black man and asks this and the little girl walks away after asking the question and says to her brother, “I think he was Muslim or something.” ^^ “So, why can’t people be confident enough in their personal beliefs to stop trying to push them on those who don’t share them? Don’t they know it’s useless to try to tell, sell, or spell someone that their beliefs are wrong without proof that they, themselves, are right?” (H_K) Democracy works (as far as unity for the masses) and democracy is healthy for people (there’s a study in the book ’The Science of Happiness’ where an Italian-based community came to America near the 1700’s I think, but because olive oil (or something) wasn’t available for their cooking they used lard – so they ate this really, really greasy food but ended up surviving twice as well-off of any other American community at the time because of the way they ran things in the community – when you are happy, and Democracy seems to make people happy, your body produces more white blood cells). I know it seems like some kind of burden to have people tell you your views on life are crooked and need to be straightened up with the help of religion but, again, this may be their (the ’seller’) religious task to help spread the word. (It does seem like some people are ’proud’ to be Christian but I think it’s a little bit of something else that is just being misinterpreted wrong. Who knows.) “We’d find it appalling if some asshole was trying to force someone else to eat a certain type of Ice Cream, and yet we do nothing but shake our heads as laws are passed that force others to live in the manner deemed appropriate by those who should be fervently upholding the concept of freedom of religion.” (H_K) ^ Indeed, the US Constitution is based off of the 10 Commandments. I really need to read her book, but Karin Armstrong says that the American sense of individualism came from religion... I’m sure she has many valid points in that book about how people behave and how government is influenced/formed from religious origins.

User	H_K | 2007-06-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	So, why can’t people be confident enough in their personal beliefs to stop trying to push them on those who don’t share them? Don’t they know it’s useless to try to tell, sell, or spell someone that their beliefs are wrong without proof that they, themselves, are right? We’d find it appalling if some asshole was trying to force someone else to eat a certain type of Ice Cream, and yet we do nothing but shake our heads as laws are passed that force others to live in the manner deemed appropriate by those who should be fervently upholding the concept of freedom of religion.

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Exactly! But some people want to impose their beliefs upon others, often to the detriment of everyone involved and not necessarily involved. You like chocolate. I like vanilla. Awesome. Let’s go eat what we like and talk nicely. That’s what I think.

User	H_K | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It is just like arguing over which is the best: Vanilla, or Chocolate, or strawberry.... None are wrong, just different flavors to accommodate different tastes.

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I agree with you too, Traci (nice to see you around too... say hi to everyone for me, will you?). Yours is the voice of cold hard reason, and there’s nothing wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with people who believe in God... or don’t. I’m pretty easy like that... whatever the hell works for you, then that’s all good with me. It seems senseless that we still have wars over things like this. It really is. Anyway, that’s me outta here for a few days. Ciao.

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Also, I have an overriding urge right now to be a smartarse and write "blue monkey balls"... I don’t know why, but I do... I’m a sucker for the dumbest puns in existence. Sorry, Blue lol.

User	onetruesmartass | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	That made perfect sense, Outlaw, and I completely agree that religion, the bible and interpretations of such are personal for each individual experiencing them. Which also leads back to my point that since such things are personal, why do people always question the beliefs of others? Be they Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Athiest or Wiccan, if their chosen religion works for them, why must others try to convert? I’m a strong atheist that chooses not to live within the confines of religious life. If I wanted to I would, but since I don’t, I can’t say I appreciate people trying to convert me. *onetruesmartass*

User	alteredlife | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili monitored the neurological incidences (by taking ’snapshots’ of the parts in the brain that lit up) in nuns and monks as they prayed and meditated. (So, if you will, scientific proof that God does in fact exist.)" I would like to refute you on this, Rouge. The reason being is that all this proves is that there’s a certain area of the brain, most likely related to what we perceive as ’spiritual encounters’ lighting up these regions, nothing more. I know, totally clinical, but that’s what I get from it, not this ’2+2 somehow equals 5’ assumption that this is proof that God exists. There’s an article somewhere on the net about a test done on men who were studying to be priests. One group got given a stack of acid (yes, LSD), while the other group got a placebo. The one’s who ingested LSD overridingly spoke of a mystic experience. They came to the conclusion that certain psychotropic substances were no different in outcome to priests who had experienced God through prayer and meditation (this was another test). I know this is slightly off-tangent, but it’s an example of how certain parts of the brain identify with these mystic urges. Anyway, you’ve written a lot of things to ponder... I don’t have the time right now to talk about anything but what I’ve refuted, but damn... it’s good to have you back in the forums.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	(Blue) Monks rule! My brain stays lit, but doc says it’s just too much coffee.

User	rouge wave | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	.
Message	Blue Boy, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever seen you say. Made me laugh. At the beginning of a book I read they stated "everything in history is bunk." And I tend to believe that: you simply cannot trust eyewitnesses (or the account of events dictated by peers). Their stories change... you can see the effects of time elapse on human memory and emotion (or memory of emotions). In my favorite book ever, "The Science of Happiness," they explain an experiment on school teachers who had to teach in bad parts of town and upscale parts. I wish I had the book with me to copy down the explanation of this but I loaned it out. "Religion is nothing more than an extraordinarily elaborate old wive’s tale." (MyX) ^ Indeed. I posted this in another thread but I suppose this is better suited here, but "History of God" by Karen Armstrong is a good and informative read on religion (as the title suggests). Here’s one thing we must accept: people have a component in them that makes them desire to place meanings to things, sort of an existential component. The experiment I read was they rolled a red ball from left to right in front of an infant child. The child watched the ball as it rolled and then bump into the wall and stopped. They then rolled the ball behind a piece of cardboard then lifted it and the ball was in front of a box in front of the wall. Lastly, they rolled the ball and the baby stared longest at the ball that appeared as if the ball had passed through the solid box and rested on the other side of the box, next to the wall (I know this isn’t worded very well and it confused me when I read it in the book too, but it proves that we ponder the impossible more than we would what seems plausible, hence the existential component). Here’s yet another thought: religion is firstly political. How is it political? 1) brings people together 2) created delegates to help mandate order 3) helps create a basis of ruling among common citizens - in the long run, helps people (in theory) work together (as ’in theory’ applies since people will always ridicule or second-guess their peers and those above them) What then happens when the people succeed from this way of life? There isn’t ever a full succession, as we can see by this simple debate, but the mind and thoughts evolve and we will ALWAYS search for new explanations (’Scientology’). ^ A scary political group are the Jesus Camp fanatics, known as the evangelic Christians (the ’born again’ Christians). If you watch the documentary ’Jesus Camp’ it should, whether you’re religious or not, disturb you. Hitler saw the power in controlling the youth, and for political gains, so do the evangelics (they are so against abortion - how long before they attack other policies? They even say in the movie that if you get enough of them in an election - already 65 million in the US - they will overthrow/win the election). (The evangelics preach that science doesn’t know everything, in fact they say it proves nothing, and they, with their massive numbers, can sway elections and issues despite the prospects of beneficial gains to society overall.) "Mysteries are for God to know, and for Kings to seek." (Monk) ^ A nice quote. All in all we die. "They’re searching for ’truth’ in a realm where there is only faith to be had...They say PROVE GOD, I SAY PROVE NO GOD. Neither of us can do either." (Monk) ^ Indeed, but we can, as I’ve posted somewhere else (I’m getting mixed up where), Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili monitored the neurological incidences (by taking ’snapshots’ of the parts in the brain that lit up) in nuns and monks as they prayed and meditated. (So, if you will, scientific proof that God does in fact exist.) There is a neat little thing in our nervous system called the quiescent function (and as it sounds, quie as in quiet, it is the part that calms us). This is how the 5-minute-phobia remedy works (do a Google search on that) - and note the pressure point in your hand, between your thumb and pointer, they say that if you have a headache all you have to do is rub this area. And as in everything else int he world, all things are full of poLIEtics - both sides will lie to gain support. And both sides will create bumper stickers.

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Therein proving the arrogance of thinking we can.