Kimmo

Thanks to you, this topic is now in spray. Happy now???? seems like most are. and it seems pretty settled: most think it was wrong to bolt, most think it shouldn't be removed, and most think it developed excellent awareness about the fact that no more routes such as it will be tolerated. so you asked a question, the responses came in, and you are in a one or two person minority. live with it.

hey what is this about not dissing other websites here? when the hell did this policy go into effect? certainly not when assclensionist.com was around.

hmmm i think you might be mistaken on this one; one of the difficulties facing "schizophrenics" is their sense of isolation, marked by a lack of loving relationships. it'd be hard to compare a diagnosed schizophrenic's relationship to jesus with that of a relatively well-adjusted humanoid's relationship with jesus: there are reasons a "schizophrenic" is classified as such. Many of the medieval hermits were textbook definition of modern schizophrenics. They lived by themselves, ignored personal hygeiene, acted bizarrely and heard God talking to them constantly. are you suggesting it is time for frankezoid to come in from the desert and wash himself?

is this another way of saying you don't summit much?

hmmm i think you might be mistaken on this one; one of the difficulties facing "schizophrenics" is their sense of isolation, marked by a lack of loving relationships. it'd be hard to compare a diagnosed schizophrenic's relationship to jesus with that of a relatively well-adjusted humanoid's relationship with jesus: there are reasons a "schizophrenic" is classified as such.

i really don't see your point in asking the question above, but i kinda wanna answer it anyway. so it turns out the thing was bolted in a wilderness area. with power drills. by mistake. an honest explainable mistake. it has been discussed by the powers that be, it has been discussed by the general climbing community, and it seems that a semblance of agreement has been reached by the majority: this route should be left in place, but there will be no tolerance for more routes established in a similar fashion. this is my take on the situation. it's a route that's enjoyed by many, it's certainly NOT establishing a precedent, and most everyone agrees that removing it would lead to a quite intense "bolt war".

have you read cosmic trigger, final secrets of the illuminati? fun stuff.

my god, that is.

i'm sorry, but i really don't. your post just doesn't make sense, and i don't have the inclination to parse the damn thing. but we can still all rest peacefully, in the presence of god.

An organizing force in the universe. god is not an office manager.

the god which can be spoken of is not god.

god is defiburcation.

god is death. death is life.

god is my tolip-oc.

i don't think the distinction between "bastardized" and "syncretic" is entirely relevant to me, since they both indicate a change from the original teachings and ideas (which was my point). and i'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph; i was simply paraphrasing something the buddha supposedly said. did what he say exist in a broader context, one that may have shifted the meaning in a different direction? sure, but i'm not sure that shift would occur with the introduction of the three jewels as context-broadeners, would it? i'm not terribly literate in buddhist texts, and it sounds like you might be, so share with me any theistic tendencies of the buddha, since i'm not aware of any.

I disagree wit ya on whether Buddhists are atheists. Some of the New Age varieties of Buddhism might fit your description but Buddhism is primarily a syncretic religion that merges local religious beliefs such as seen in Tibet with the Bon deities or in Japan with the Shinto kami. Furthermore, Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism combines Hindu and Buddhist icons. Of course, everything depends on your definition of what constitutes a god or an atheist. Could you agree that an atheist is simply a materialist in that he does not believe in existence apart from the corporeal body and as a materialist he chooses not to believe in god(s)? So, he does not believe in the supernatural. Yet Buddhism is chock full of the supernatural. Sure, real psychological insights might get you hooked into the religion but the ultimate goal is reaching the state of nirvana, that elusive goal that, it’s said, only one being achieves within aeons of Time. It seems to me that a tacit belief in the supernatural is prerequisite to the goal of Buddhist enlightened self-interest (compassion towards all sentient beings is the action that leads to nirvana). I suppose though if you were to take the New Age tact and practice a bastardized version of Buddhism as a technology of the body and mind then sure, go ahead and use autogenic suggestion, self-hypnosis, etc. You might eke out some performance gains but at some point you’ll reach a pinnacle where “biology is destiny”. i would say that the theistic forms of buddhism you mention above are "bastardized" versions of buddhism (tibetan, japanese) since they did exactly what you describe: combined the buddha's teachings with the local belief in deities and gods and such. what i was talking about was the buddha's own teachings (as much as we can trust them to be his, since i think it was the first council a while after his death that wrote them down) where he speaks of ignoring questions of "god" and "after-life" and "spirit" and such as being metaphysical speculation only. he spoke of trusting your own experiences, not simply having "faith" in some other-worldly saviour. was he an "atheist"? i don't know, but some of his words could certainly lead one to think so.

don't speak for other "non-believers"; learn to speak for yourself. it's an annoying, wince-inducing even, habit that you have. Learn to stand on your own two feet; don't include this "non-believer" in your offensive rhetoric.

i noticed my name in the "reply to", so i'm hoping i didn't offend you. that certainly wasn't my intention. perhaps my comment about jesus not making you do anything because he passed away 2000 years ago could be offensive? certainly wasn't meant that way, and was more directed at the wording of the thread title (i really don't think jesus would make anyone do anything, even if he was walking around right now....doesn't seem like it was his style). the only irritation i have ever had with some of the christians i know is the seeming lack of humbleness regarding their belief. the "i know what i believe is true." well there might be a few other things too, like all non-believers go to hell and such; it just seems that communication breaks down at some point, and this is kinda unfortunate. hard to be close friends with someone when you can't have open dialog and challenge each other's beliefs. having said that, my best friend in high school and college was a pretty devout christian. we talked about these things all the time. but he was also able to say "i don't know", as was i. but yeah i feel ya about the whole "i know what the truth is" spiel, whether it comes from an atheist (or a christian).

not to be pickin on you, but the above isn't true. some atheists pray, but not to a god or a deity. orthodox buddhists are atheists, and they pray. i think prayer can be powerful stuff, whether or not one believes in a "god".

btw, isn't it ishta yoga?

even with the weight issues? powerful stuff, that eesha yoga.

if yer going that route, stella artois.

Gotta call post-modern BS on you. What are you referring to? You don't think climbing has objective reality? hmm... we were talking about what climbing is to individuals, and that relationship is subjective. of course the act of climbing itself is objective, to the degree that we all can agree on some identifiable event actually occuring. but, i suppose that the relationship between humanoid and any given event is perhaps objectifiable, ie it can be reduced to scientifically identifiable markers. but, i suppose it can be argued that science itself is subjective....

climbing itself is what it is for the person; it doesn't have any intrinsic objective reality.

wanting to be better at something is selfish.. not neccesarily the activity you want to be better at. only if you desire that improvement for ego gratification methinks. the idea of "improvement" is kinda tricky....what if you want to become a "better" person, ie "improve"; would that be selfish?