Bug
-
Posts
6629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bug
-
-
Yeah but that doesn't mean you aren't going to hell, Tvash.
Anyone with three or more posts in spray is going to hell.
God told me.
-
Yeah. How cheep. Maybe I'll go in March.
-
"Never pull a gun on anybody you don't fully intend to kill."
Henry Fonda
-
I'm up for that.
PM sent.
-
Anyone been up there today?
-
I'm awake.
Need coffee...............
Then I am going to peace out.
No spray.
-
but steven, WHAT IF THAT'S TRUE?
then hopefully the virgins are all blondes with big boobies.
I'm pretty sure that is not high on the "likely" list.
Have you been out to http://mylifeisaverage.com/ to post that?
-
Well, it might be close mindedness, but then, growing up in Northern Cali, where you can't swing a dead yogi without hitting one of the faux enlightened, I might be somewhat less inclined to share the awe and wonder of a guy like Bug's often advertised voyage of self described apotheosis...particularly when adorned with tales of fog controlling fakirs. Whatever fills your emotional potholes, myan, but it ain't exactly the first time I've run into One who's found The Way...and who assumes you've lost yours, of course. That club footed second idea, the seat of the suburban shaman's true spirituality, never fails to shuffle behind the first, its way presumably lit by a lustrous aura that is, well, only lustrous aura deep. In this way, the So Much More Enlightened Than Thou are really no different than their raving evangelical brethren.
A True Believer's credibility isn't necessarily enhanced when the Majority Rules argument is invariably trotted out; an near certainty whenever the uber open minded spiritual wunderkind trips over a bit of healthy skepticism regarding the mystical universe they've created for themselves. If I was the only atheist on the planet, I'd still be an atheist, cuz I really don't give a shit what the rest of the herd believes.
Ah. I see your problem.
You are making a whole pile of false assumptions.
Who would have guessed.
Just an FYI, if you were not such a tireless evangalist for your endless stream of truths, you might have time to have a real conversation.
Just sayin.....
-
I frequently brainwash children into believing that the test of all knowledge is experiment and that matter/energy exists in discrete quanta. Does this make me a bad person?
No. You were bad already.
-
Relax. It was joke.
No problem there.
I was responding to Pat's lack of staying power.
I would like to hear more about how and why he thinks like a scientific fundamentalist but he refuses to look in the mirror and describe what he sees.
It's funny. I was raised in a purely atheistic household and he was raised in a Catholic household. It seems my experiences left me with a more open mind. But then again, maybe it's just a matter of time before the rest of the world falls in line with him.
All those thousands of years of superstitious mumbo-jumbo from every corner of the world can't really amount to anything. Just a lot of fuzzy kitties out there.........
-
You did confirm my "suspicion" that you were raised Catholic.
RACIAL PROFILING!!
RACIAL PROFILING!!!
That, and I've posted about being raised Catholic several times already...hardly a 'secret', and why would it be?
Nothing to see here. Move on.
Dodging, dodging, and more dodging.
You are right.
Nothing to see here.
More wasted time in spray.
Unlike other days when spray is a worthwhile endeavor.
-
But that is not the basis of the religion.
It is the choice of the individual.
Except for the fact that most strict interpretations of Christianity state that every followers duty as a Christian is to convert non believers. And in the case of Islam, the Koran is exceedingly clear: convert, subjugate, or kill. Either is a form of violence.
So what you should have said is that it's the choice of the individual to selectively ignore certain passages of their holy books- the word of God himself. What a fine contradiction and source of neurosis stacked on top of all the resident fantasy, dogma, and mysticism.
The deflection here is to talk about individual variations (extremes) and avoid questioning of the whole basis of faith.
You go ahead and stick with the "strict interpretations" with the fanatical right. It does make for a good heated arguement.
I choose not to.
Therefor it has nothing to do with me.
"the word of God himself" does not reside in any book. That is the greatest failing of Christianity IMO. Neitze wrote "Never was there so great a persecutor of CHristians as Saul until Paul."
He spoke of religion and the beleif in God.
I would use the same Statement but because Paul Judaized and ritualized Christianity. It did not have to be that way. And now we have "Good Christians" who beleive that God speaks through a book when it is that which resides in their hearts and minds that matters.
Muhammed and his council took it one step further and actually presented the book as the word of God. It was also the original Protestantism. It provided direct access to God whereas Christianity had become so ritualized and dogmatic that you had to go through a preist for all the deepest rituals.
So now we are in a new age of cognizant change.
The beginning of the computer age is what we are toying with right now. We are building new institutions while the old ones crumble and pointing fingers like it is somebody's fault. As a species we have learned very little.
-
Christianity is founded on unconditional love for all humanity.
That's what Christians say anyway. Too bad most of them don't act accordingly.
True enough. But that is not the basis of the religion.
It is the choice of the individual.
-
Yes Ivan.
You are as usual, a positive exception.
I would gladly buy you a beer for your contributions to reason on this site and particularly in spray.
As for your bivy buddy, Tvash, he seems to like to argue.
With respect to religious issues, I suspect Tvash is a recovering Catholic. They never seem to get past the damages caused by dogmatic aproaches to spirituality.
One thing Tvash doesn't do is assume someone's experience; that's one of the prime indicators of ignorance, one you display often.
I had a great experience with Catholicism. Went to a fine Catholic school with good teachers, our parish priest was a young, liberal Irishman (Father Pat, coincidentally) who did many good works for the community, my religious education was quite open; many other faiths and doctrines were discussed with equal respect, and there were always lots and lots of donuts around. Loving one another was the number one idea pushed, at least in that parish.
I gave up belief in God because it no longer made a lick of sense. The process was little different than giving up a belief in Santa Claus. You hold on for as long as you can, but in the end, you've got to decide how much you're willing to bullshit yourself for the comfort gained.
As for my attitude towards Evangelicals; I met my first real live thumper in college. What a bowl full of assholes and kooks. Since then, the evangelicals have done nothing to sway that early opinion and everything to bolster it. They are the enemies of true American freedom; far more dangerous to the positive aspects of our way of life than any cave dwelling imam.
You did confirm my "suspicion" that you were raised Catholic.
There are more choices that Catholics or Evangelicals. I would argue that BOTH do more harm than good in a mass media oriented forum. Thus my reference to "damages". And in fact, I beleive that all religions should remove themselves from mass media forums. Especially politics. But that will never happen. So we are left to debate the issues.
We can chose to use the same tactics as the fanatics or not. I would argue that most of the anti-religion rhetoric posted here on this site is more like the religious fanatics they (rightfully) bash than unlike them. Therefore I contend that the issue is not religion but the people who are making the choices. They tend to position religion and science in opposition just like the religious right. Most of the Christians, Muslims, Buddists and Hindus I know do not see any basis for this opposition. And they want peace and happiness for all regardless of their religious or anti-religous views.
-
Why? Among other things, religion does tend to create polarized groups of people and foster an Us vs. Them mentality, as well as the aforementioned black and white paradigm.
Those are pursuits that all humans tend toward in a herd mentality.
It is as inappropriate in religion as anywhere else. Probably much more so actually.
But the point is, religion is a tool for those who have something to gain from the "us vs them" mentality. It is not part of the spiritual fabric of any religion I have studied.
Christianity is founded on unconditional love for all humanity.
Even Islam has a saying from the Prophet himself that I will paraphrase, "Any man who is pious in the practice of his spiritual beleifs shall be respected and acknowledged by the mercy of Allah."
Follow the money.
-
Yes Ivan.
You are as usual, a positive exception.
I would gladly buy you a beer for your contributions to reason on this site and particularly in spray.
As for your bivy buddy, Tvash, he seems to like to argue.
With respect to religious issues, I suspect Tvash is a recovering Catholic. They never seem to get past the damages caused by dogmatic aproaches to spirituality.
-
It amuses me that so many people blame "religion" for problems.
As though if all religion were abolished, then the world would be at peace and poverty would disappear.
-
We all agree that this study is bogus.
-
Oh, and please don't kick me off cc.com because I'm fat.
-
As if joining a website to get your hookups doesn't make you an abysmal loser to begin with...
So let me get this straight.
It's OK to meet other climbers online but not OK to meet potential dates online?
-
They changed.
Yup.
So will this generation.
Or the next.
Sooner than most people think though.
Meanwhile, if you want to be the one to antagonize the mean dog, be my guest. I'm not saying it's wrong. It definately isn't. Its just not wise to do it and expect "your rights" to protect you.
-
I put a fatwa on this thread
That's culturally insensitive.
Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى), in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwa is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwa. This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwa) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]
So it depends on what the intent of the fatwa is.
It also should suggest that K considers himself a Mufti.
-
The radical/extremist Muslim viewpoint that anyone who "blasphemes" or offends, (real or perceived), against the prophet Mohammed , or against Islam, must therefore die, is a perfect example of what psychologists call "black and white" thinking. No room or tolerance for any subtleties or shades of gray.
It's a kind of thinking commonly identified in school shooters, domestic violence, gang violence, and both wet and dry alchoholics, to name just a few. (For instance, George "You're either for us or against us" Bush, a "dry drunk".)
It was also described as a prominent cultural characteristic of the Semitic mind, by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in his book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom". This book, which is still today a vitally important source for understanding the history and culture of the Middle East, amazingly prophetic of what we're seeing today, starts with an Introduction on the foundations of Arab revolt. The first four paragraphs of Ch.3 are essential reading for anyone who wants to even begin to understand the Arab mind:
"In the very outset, at the first meeting with them, was found a universal clearness or hardness of belief, almost mathematical in its limitation, and repellent in its unsympathetic form. Semites had no half-tones in their register of vision. They were a people of primary colors, or rather of black and white, who saw the world always in contour. They were a dogmatic people, despising doubt...They knew only truth and untruth, belief and unbelief, without our hesitating retinue of finer shades.... Their thoughts were at ease only in extremes...they never compromised,...they pursued the logic of several incompatible opinions to absurd ends, without perceiving the incongruity. With cool head and tranquil judgement, imperturbably unconscious of the flight, they oscillated...".
So it's hardly suprising to see things like the fatwas and attack on the the Danish cartoonist, or the whole pantheon of terrorism that we face today. It's a very, very ancient, ingrained mindset. What our society identifies as utter madness, is to many in the Arab or Muslim world, perfectly clear and logical. If you're an unbeliever, you must either convert or die, very simple. If you offend the prophet or his teaching, you must die, whether you're a believer or not.
This is how America becomes the Great Satan, why enraged masses can't just chant "Down" with America; no, it must be "DEATH" to America. Nor does it matter that nothing in the Koran explicitly mandates this; it's the BELIEF that the proper practice of the faith demands it, from time immemorial. There's nothing about this inconsistency that gives any militant Muslim so much as a moment's doubt; it's just the way it is. The very declaration of the faith is all the explanation necessary: "There is no God but God, and Allah is his name."
End of discussion, as simple as that. Lawrence's book is an incredible, brilliant analysis of not only the conditions and experiences of his own time, but of what's happening right now, just with different players. It ought to be required reading and study for anyone in government, diplomacy, the military, business, etc., who's dealing with anyone or anything in the Middle East. And anyone who thinks for a moment that any of this is going to change anytime soon, certainly within our lifetimes, is a total fool.
Your beleifs on this matter seem very black and white.
-
"So perhaps all political cartoon authors should just be killed?"
Gee. I didn't know I said that.
How quickly we spin out of control.
My point is that 50 years ago the cartoonist in Denmark would have been presenting his ideas to his own culture.
Now if you play on the internet or national TV at all, your ideas are shared with the entire world.
If you want to piss off the hard core religious fanatics of the world by posting insults in a widely read internet forum while representing yourself as a social commentator, then by all means do so. But don't expect any pity from me.
It ain't fair.
It ain't right.
It should be changed overnight.
Do we have any volunteers to be the first martyr for that cause?
It's a peaceful religion
in Spray
Posted
No.
Just a bitch.