Post Praetorian

imperialscum said:

Post Praetorian said:

imperialscum said:

Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.

It is possible, however such a concept is unlikely given the universal acceptance of color groupings such as fall colors, pastels, jewel tones, etc. Further, if my sky were red instead of blue my sunsets would be much less spectacular. My sunsets are spectacular therefor the sky cannot be red.

Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?

I don't think you understood the problem.

It was understood in the context of a single color shift. With such a concept it seemed unlikely to expect all colors of a given group to shift in a similar vein given the apparent randomness of the first occurrence. 

The name of the colour is standardised based on the frequency of radiation emitted by some common and distinct objects in the nature. Why do you call the sky blue? Not because of what you experienced inside your brain but because someone told you that the sky is blue. So only after that you associated your brain perception to what you were being taught. However brain perception of sky can be different from person to person and yet we will all call it blue because that is how we were being taught and because the radiation frequency is universal.

Same with the fall colours, as you gave the example. We were told that the leafs are red and yellow in autumn. And we have no problem calling it red and yellow despite possible different brain perceptions. This is simply because we associated our different brain perception to the particular frequency of radiation, which is universal.

 If all colors of a given family were to shift equally, would the possibility that they might so differ from individual to individual truly matter so long as they remained so similarly indexed?

It is possible. It might be interesting to conceive of an experiment to prove or disprove such a concept, but lacking such an aegis I must leave this as merely a possibility.

Canadian provinces, which he then

G k6-j5

DE, muttering something about too much gingerbread and not enough cookies, suddenly changes tactics and instead lunges at low-hanging fruit:

B j8xg2

He used this to purchase

imperialscum said:

Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.

It is possible, however such a concept is unlikely given the universal acceptance of color groupings such as fall colors, pastels, jewel tones, etc. Further, if my sky were red instead of blue my sunsets would be much less spectacular. My sunsets are spectacular therefor the sky cannot be red.

Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?

Possessed said:

Do chickens have personalities?  If so, should we be eating them?

Is not personality synonymous with flavor? 

Mrebo said:

Post Praetorian said:

Mrebo said:

Post Praetorian said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

 It is certainly possible.

Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.

A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?

what of bacon?

 Perhaps chicken bacon?

I meant Francis Bacon ;)

 Equally tasty, I'm sure

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?

How so?

Was it not your claim that God had nobody? When one is in such a predicament is it not generally one's own fault? If so, is such a thing not typically as a result of having missed many an opportunity to lighten the moods of others through acts of levity?

As those are not serious questions, I fear I am not allowed to discuss them freely hereabouts.

Please note the word of a given month carefully hidden in the title of this thread. Kindly select one of its alternate meanings for greater clarity as to this thread's purported purpose. Finally, carry on as per usual.

Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?

I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.

 It is possible. Equally possible is that, though potentially omnipotent, God is simply lazy...in the biblical sense, of course.

 The biblical sense? :P

 Well, surely...!

Also, if the shoe may fit, as it were, further evidence of a lazy god:

1) He purportedly made man in his image.

2) The vast majority of mankind is lazy.

3) God made the giraffe.

4) God allowed the dinosaurs to become extinct before allowing mankind to see them.

5) God flooded the world and could only be bothered to assist a single family build a rather ungainly and unimaginatively crafted (and unbelievably tiny) boat and then merely suggested that all the world's animals were somehow to fit inside.

5b) He designed said boat with but a single window.

6) He designed all of space but then forgot to fill most of it in.

7) To compensate for this lack of material he cobbled together 'dark matter' so that he could still maintain gravitational integrity but did not have to make any more visible material.

8) God came to earth as Jesus, claimed it was important, claimed we could only enter Heaven if we should follow his new decrees, and then failed to write any of these messages down.

9) Also of note: he seemingly has been on an extended holiday for several thousand years.

where he gained a quality

P d6xd5

Though words are hollow comforts, they are all I can offer. Please understand that though I do not claim to have lived your life I have some true understanding of the type of pain and struggles you are experiencing.

I have some questions in case you would like to expand on your post. Answer the ones with which you are comfortable. You can PM if you'd prefer or ignore me completely; I am not here to burden you further.

How long ago did you begin drinking and at what age?

What is your drug of choice? When did you start taking it?

When did you last see your mother? Why were you separated?

Do you live with or near your father?

I am sorry that your grandparents are dying, but am very glad your father is a part of your life. It is so important to those of us with suicide as a constant, nagging, reminder of the easy way out that we remember the importance of our relationships and the devastation that our deaths can bring (just as you are unfortunately experiencing with your grandparents). We are all in this together and sometimes need to shift our burdens slightly in order to be able to persevere.

We are never really quite aware of how we influence the people around us. I hope it is of some comfort to you that your post has given me the impetus to live through yet one more day knowing that I have another companion on this road.

Regards,

Praetorian

L j6-i4

DE then considered several serious moves before enacting plan C: 

S i7-h6

which he would eat when

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?

How so?

Was it not your claim that God had nobody? When one is in such a predicament is it not generally one's own fault? If so, is such a thing not typically as a result of having missed many an opportunity to lighten the moods of others through acts of levity?

Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?

I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.

 It is possible. Equally possible is that, though potentially omnipotent, God is simply lazy...in the biblical sense, of course.

Mrebo said:

Post Praetorian said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

 It is certainly possible.

Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.

A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?

what of bacon?

 Perhaps chicken bacon?

hair and a really neat

With nice, pointy, shoes that

DuracellEnergizer said:

If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

 It is certainly possible.

Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.

A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?

Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Alternately is it not possible he might merely have been taken to drink-- often, and in quantity?

Certainly possible, but as my "argument" presupposes that he was/is God, I would consider it rather improbable. If Jesus' opponents thought it unsuitable for a respectable teacher to crack jokes or have a good laugh now and then, they may have attempted to undermine his authority by accusing him of drunkenness (something that probably wouldn't have been taken seriously if Jesus was serious).

 Is it not equally possible to reverse such an argument?

Might it not have been due to a general demeanor of serious purpose that such a counter claim to his conduct might have had its inception? To clarify, is it not possible that, in seeing one of such a disposition becoming popular, an alternate version of his comportment might have been circulated with an express purpose of undermining credibility?

Provided only with such hearsay evidence, who among the listeners might have been capable of effectively countering such a campaign?

Alternately, if Jesus had been known for his joviality, might one not expect to locate a single qualifying parable?

Davnes007 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Answer: The egg obviously.

 This is a ridiculous and meaningless statement resulting from a false dichotomy.

Is it not obvious that it must have been the farmer who came first?

The rooster came first.

 <sigh>

L h6x+j6

to eat, as a habit.

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Alternately is it not possible he might merely have been taken to drink-- often, and in quantity?

Psalm 2:2-4 and 37:12-13 has God laughing at the foolishness of the wicked. That could be taken as a sense of humour, but could also be taken as sadistic, depending on how one views things. A loving God certainly wouldn't be happy about a wicked person suffering eternal punishment.

Neither of which might seemingly support the concept of a light sense of humor...

So, I think the Christian God has a sense of humour. Whether such a thing is really possible must be explored through further discussion.

 Certainly it would be interesting to consider further.

NeverarGreat said:

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

But which God are we talking about?

Was not a reference given above? www.bible.com

God, after all, is only a title for the current president of the universe.

The previous president of the universe is God's political rival, Satan, who was ousted after a particularly clever campaign by Jesus, who sold himself as a political savior who was nevertheless relatable to the common man.

Unfortunately, upon taking the oath of Godhood, Jesus has apparently continued many of the failed policies of his predecessor. Most notably, he has failed to close Hell, where many are still incarcerated due to simple ignorance of official divine policy

Is it possible that his failure to so do may have its root in the probability that Hell was vacant at the time? 

or of petty offenses such as masturbation or eating shellfish.

Or possibly shellfish eating, which may have been an unfortunate phonetic transcriptional error of the more conventional selfish eating which today seemingly afflicts a majority of certain given populations.   

Ryan McAvoy said:

Question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Answer: The egg obviously.

 This is a ridiculous and meaningless statement resulting from a false dichotomy.

Is it not obvious that it must have been the farmer who came first?