thejediknighthusezni

   Just when dude was starting to make a little bit of sense, he up and leaves the forum.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

This thread seemed the most appropiate thread for this.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/13/392817912/pope-francis-says-his-tenure-at-the-vatican-will-be-short?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr

You have any thoughts about this, RicOlie_2?

 No.

...

Just kidding. I'm not really surprised. I mean, the guy only has one lung, not to mention that he hasn't been afraid to speak out against popular or powerful people, like the Mafia. However, I do hope he lasts a lot longer than he expects to, and doesn't kill himself trying to reform the curia. He's up against a fair bit of opposition there, if I understand the situation correctly, and the Church needs more popes like him: unafraid to reform and saintly. I only hope that either he or his successor is rewarded in their efforts to fix problems with the Church's leadership and his/their work is not undone.

       *sigh*

      I can see the CRUEL and HORRIFYING methods and modes of operation of that organization. I can see and understand HOW.

      I have TREMENDOUS difficulty processing WHY.

      The characters who run all this are in their sixties, seventies, and eighties.

     "George" is pushing eighty and in poor health.

      Why would anyone in a position like that think of anything other than bringing MAXIMUM destruction upon it?

      They are OBSESSED with the power to destroy people. They get their SICK and PSYCHOPATHIC jollies out of proving their control.

      Why shoot fish in a barrel? Why hunt the ducks on the pond, just trying to feed?

      There's NO SPORT in SADISTIC HARM to all the half-decent, disparate, desparate people just trying to get by.

      If they love destructive power and control, and they CERTAINLY do, there can be nothing greater than demolishing their own operation and all of the MONSTERS within.

ATMachine said:

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

What do you think of this article, more specifically the subject matter of it than the article itself?  Not trying to be challenging or mocking, I'm just really curious as to how you would explain it?  This isn't very detailed, but it was the best article I could find quickly enough.  It didn't mention that Horus was also resurrected and ascended to the heavens after three days of being dead, but I have seen other places that indicated this.  Not saying the story of Jesus was plagiarized from an egyptian tale that predates it by thousands of years, because I don't have to.

On a similar note, the story of Noah and the ark (even down to the detail of a dove signifying dry land) also appears thousands of years before Judaism, and the story of Moses, with the same basic idea of the same story with different names (although the story of moses the earlier versions had somewhat similar names)

If a being of supernatural, yet eternal, intentions might exist, is it not possible that his message may be consistent in its elements, yet stressed somewhat differently to disparate peoples?

To clarify, is it not possible that God might merely enjoy recounting the same tales?

 Actually, that's exactly what I believe.  I personally don't believe that the story of Jesus is untrue, I just believe it's a retelling of a different story with changed names, and with details altered to fit the desired culture or audience.  I was not saying that this makes the story of Jesus untrue, I think it's true, it just may not have been "Jesus of Nazareth".

However, I find Ric's points about finding similarities between two things very weak.

Sure you can find similarities in anything, but let's look at these similarities:

*Both born of a virgin

*Both had stars signifying their birth
*Both teachers at age 12.  SPECIFICALLY age 12.

*Both "baptized" at age 30, specifically.
*Both tempted by the evil force, on a mountain.

* Both crucified, then ascended to heaven.

Certainly, there is more to investigate for sure...

Those are pretty damn specific, and I don't think you can find those similarities between two random people.

Like I said, I still think the story is true, I just believe the story of Jesus and the story of Horus are merely retellings of the same story.

 Fair enough...

 This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite Scriptural quotations:

"This is magnificent--and it is true! It never happened, yet it is still true. What magic art is this?"

And another:

"Only the magic of pure thought, my lord."

The third quote is left as an exercise for the readers.

          First, I'd wonder how many of these legends were concocted Post-30ad.

          Then, I'd remember that there were a great many presages of the Christ story throughout the OT and ancient Hebrew histories and legends going back to the time of Adam.

          The Egyptions and Babylonians were very adept at recognizing powereful Spiritual concepts and incorporating them into their own mystical systems. 

         I don't know why the actors would give up an ongoing gig like that.

         I like the new cast. They do a great job. They do need to develope further. Towards and/or away from the TOS characters.

         I really liked the concept in the commentary of people being drawn together across altered timelines. Been hoping to see that develope as well.

        It would be difficult to reduce into brief expo drops.

        Brief talk about quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance applying across altered timelines. A "default" "original" timeline and all the particles and waves in altered timelines remain "connected" and being drawn as nearly as possible into positions conforming to the "original".

        Edge of Tomorrow pulled it off (with a little "makes you think" confusion.)

        Like Luke and Ben in Ben's hovel, I enjoy it when a sci-fi movie does a good job of taking a little time to catch it's breath and enrich it's universe. 

DuracellEnergizer said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

...And this here -- this more than any of their ignorant stances on evolution, overpopulation, or religion -- is a perfect example of why I can't stand living with my parents, especially my dumb shit-for-brains father.

       OOhhh! I can help!

       Intuitive and Common Sense evaluation is a crucially important form of intelligence. Many if not most of the greatest scientific discoveries and inventions have been dependent upon it.

      To be intelligent is to quickly process information and perceive valid points therein.

       If your parents are able to intuit that the random evolution explanation is in fact full of holes and reasons to believe fabuluosly unlikely, if they can sense that the overpopulation concerns are being hyped in EXTREMELY dubious ways, by some EXTREMELY dubious characters, for EXTREMELY dubious purposes, if they can perceive that a Creator might wish to test his creations and so they remain unshaken and unsurprised by the ravings of "scientific" atheism...

       ...If they are able to do all of this in defiance of their lack of advanced university degrees and some patchiness in their educations due to basic life concerns... then you can take great comfort in the knowledge that your parents are, in fact, VASTLY more intelligent than YOU! :)

     

I may disagree with DrCrow's assessment of my relationship with my father, but at least he has some points to get across. You, on the other hand, have jackshit to give beyond your ultraconservative bullshit.

Welcome to ignore. Your schtick is no longer amusing.

        I apologize.

        Your post seemed quite related to the discussion that has been bouncing around between 'Ask an Atheist' and 'Random Thoughts'. I responded to it in that spirit.

        I hope you find your way to peace, and reconciliation for anything that can possibly be reconciled.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

...And this here -- this more than any of their ignorant stances on evolution, overpopulation, or religion -- is a perfect example of why I can't stand living with my parents, especially my dumb shit-for-brains father.

       OOhhh! I can help!

       Intuitive and Common Sense evaluation is a crucially important form of intelligence. Many if not most of the greatest scientific discoveries and inventions have been dependent upon it.

      To be intelligent is to quickly process information and perceive valid points therein.

       If your parents are able to intuit that the random evolution explanation is in fact full of holes and reasons to believe fabuluosly unlikely, if they can sense that the overpopulation concerns are being hyped in EXTREMELY dubious ways, by some EXTREMELY dubious characters, for EXTREMELY dubious purposes, if they can perceive that a Creator might wish to test his creations and so they remain unshaken and unsurprised by the ravings of "scientific" atheism...

       ...If they are able to do all of this in defiance of their lack of advanced university degrees and some patchiness in their educations due to basic life concerns... then you can take great comfort in the knowledge that your parents are, in fact, VASTLY more intelligent than YOU! :)

Post Praetorian said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

     As with all controversial opinions and viewpoints, the holders thereof can be divided into 'Generally Passive' and 'Generally Militant'.

     A passive sort doesn't especially care and takes no great pains to diminish those who hold a contrary view.

     Someone who is militant in their beliefs will be inclined to belittle, in thought and/or deed, those with opposing positions.

     Personally, I only fault passive atheists for their lack of curiosity towards the information that challenges their position.

     I am profoundly distrustful of the militant variety. FAR too often there is more to their militancy than simple disagreement over the available facts. TOO often it involves the perpetuation and propogation of CRUEL depravities in personal conduct and socio-political constructs.

Might you consider yourself to be more of a Generally Passive Theist or a Generally Militant Theist?

Further, is it not somewhat presumptuous to assume that a Passive Atheist is lacking in curiosity? Is it not equally plausible that such a one might simply understand the limitations of both positions and merely wish to refrain from unnecessary conflict? 

       Whether I am a theist at all would depend upon how broadly one wishes to define "Theism".

       In my broad consideration, Anyone with the power to generate, sustain, and effect great changes in an entire universe qualifies as "God" over that creation. For this reason, I am not uncomfortable with being called a "Theist".

       I would consider myself a "Passive Theist" in the sense that I feel no special calling to "Win people for Jesus".

      I do tend to become militant towards the militancy of others.

      As for Passive Atheists, I am confident that any genuine atheist who would take a little time to HONESTLY examine the evidence and Logic would soon move to a position of tentative agnosticism, at the least.

     As with all controversial opinions and viewpoints, the holders thereof can be divided into 'Generally Passive' and 'Generally Militant'.

     A passive sort doesn't especially care and takes no great pains to diminish those who hold a contrary view.

     Someone who is militant in their beliefs will be inclined to belittle, in thought and/or deed, those with opposing positions.

     Personally, I only fault passive atheists for their lack of curiosity towards the information that challenges their position.

     I am profoundly distrustful of the militant variety. FAR too often there is more to their militancy than simple disagreement over the available facts. TOO often it involves the perpetuation and propogation of CRUEL depravities in personal conduct and socio-political constructs.

       Wow.

       He was such a significant part of my childhood.

       I enjoyed every film I saw that he directed. A long list of accomplishments

       It didn't seem like he could ever go. He seemed like a Vulcan, living for hundreds of years.

       Like a pioneer, into the dark beyond the furthest frontier.

       RIP and Resurrection To Glory, Mr. Nimoy.

      THE KINGSMEN

      Enjoyed it. It was a fun little send-up of/addition to the British spy adventure genre.

      I'm guessing the NWO snakes consider it a delightful instructional video with a disappointing ending. I'm sure they loved the part about Lightning Barry taking all the "credit".

Frank your Majesty said:

I thought you wanted to say the ten commandments are in contrast to survival of the fittest, or something similar.

If you don't take the bible literally, you can easily say that God creating earth and life in seven days was a way for people 2500 years ago to imagine how everything started. You can still believe in Heaven and Jesus dying for your sins. That's the essence of not taking something literally.

Of course, evolution is nowhere mentioned in the bible, but neither is electricity and yet, even members of the Westboro Baptist Church use electric light.

         I've found no need to avoid a literal interpretation of world and life origins, even if we accept evolution of the directed sort.

        "Let there be light." The heavens were stretched out as a tent (a small indistinct wad into a large, stretched, more complex structure : The big bang is all the rage with the eggheads.

         "...the circle of the earth." which can be interpreted as "...the roundness of the earth.": Magellan would like a word with you.

        "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.": A feller named Albert was all over that.

        There is a much abreviated description of an "evolutionary" progression from light, to celestial bodies, to seas and aquatic life, to terrestrial advanced life (including mankind. Adam was a special 8th day creation) within a period of 6 days (see: that Albert feller.): A guy named Charley had something to say about this.

        Granted, there is very little material to work with. But if you are willing to indulge some metaphorical and figurative language, a literal interpretation does not necessarily contradict "science".

       P.S. Oh, and the Westboro "Baptists" are agitprop shills tasked with performing for the 'Two Minute Hates' of the shill MSM newscasts. The purpose is to provoke maximum HATRED in their enlightened tools and stooges for Christians and their children who try to be sincere and independent of the Luciferian Unity "Church". This will make things easier come 'The Great Culling' after 'The Big Glitch' to save the planet from 'Global Warming'.

Leonardo said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

    Outright atheists and atheist/Luciferians are burning down all flickers of decency in the world from both ends.

    The depraved try to imagine they can build a glorious new order from this act.

    They can only produce inhuman cruelties beyond anything Westerners can comprehend.

    All this debate over faith is really needless.

     Of one thing I am certain:  UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW.

     Everyone above the age of 25 with a few functioning brain cells is well equiped with a Sense for determining right from wrong and likely Truth from cruel falsety.

     Some just don't care. A great many care only enough to construct absurd rationales and then drive themselves to as much as half-believe these lies to escape from their underlying Sense that what they are doing is twisted, stupid and harmful.

    Some atheists are driven by a hatred for their Creator after denial of help. Most atheists and A/Luciferians are driven by a combination of the denial of help, guilt over past misdeeds, and the heinous thrill they derive from being involved with the destruction of the innocent and/or weak. 

    But       UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW.

    

 Yes, UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW THAT YOU'RE A CUM GUZZLING HICK.

      Well, having been raised in the middle of a large metropolitan area, I'm not a hick....but I am willing to learn :)

imperialscum said:

So I am curious if there is anyone who believes in evolution rather than creationism and still practises religion. If so, how can you and why would you even practise religion at all?

     I see no necessary contradiction between directed evolution and a Creator.

     I also believe it is quite possible for this universe to have been created from a "template" a few thousand years ago.

     Perhaps the "template" was gained from acts of directed evolution.

     I believe it is possible for the Creator to sit at a point or points inside or outside of this universe and experience 14 billion years as 7 days.

     In any case, I believe this world was deliberately designed in such a way that the more enlightened among us could fall for the unguided evolution delusion.

     This world is a testing grounds. You can't have a real test without any (at least theoretical) possibility that some might fail the test.

     Logically, undeniable evidence of a Creator would defeat the point of the exercise.

     Edit: I meant to post this in the NFL thread

     Um, the Catholic Western state church has been Luciferian from it's inception.

     All this talk about "Christianity did this in the middle ages" and "The Church did that in medieval times" is sheer nonsense.

     It was all infused with gnosticism and paganism and absurdly false doctrines from the get-go.

    After the Reformation, some Protestants held to some false doctrines and nonsense. Their violence  was almost always about goods and temporal power, when it wasn't about barest survival from the assaults of the Catholic Satanists or vicious natives.

    None of this has anything to do with the Christian faith as presented by a careful and plain reading of the Gospels, freed from all presuppositions.

    To regard all spiritual faiths as equivalent is to buy into the central LIE of the Catholic Jesuit, Freemason, Shriner Muslim, Illuminati Luciferians.

    Outright atheists and atheist/Luciferians are burning down all flickers of decency in the world from both ends.

    The depraved try to imagine they can build a glorious new order from this act.

    They can only produce inhuman cruelties beyond anything Westerners can comprehend.

    All this debate over faith is really needless.

     Of one thing I am certain:  UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW.

     Everyone above the age of 25 with a few functioning brain cells is well equiped with a Sense for determining right from wrong and likely Truth from cruel falsety.

     Some just don't care. A great many care only enough to construct absurd rationales and then drive themselves to as much as half-believe these lies to escape from their underlying Sense that what they are doing is twisted, stupid and harmful.

    I reject the notion that there is any daylight between the shoulders of a sincere Christain and a rabid Western atheist or atheist/Luciferian on the topic of whether Christianity can be considered in the same breath with Islam; or atheism, for that matter. Underneath it all, the Western atheists know that godless characters can't sustain human decency. 

    Some atheists are driven by a hatred for their Creator after denial of help. Most atheists and A/Luciferians are driven by a combination of the denial of help, guilt over past misdeeds, and the heinous thrill they derive from being involved with the destruction of the innocent and/or weak. 

    But       UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW.

        I'm shocked by the dismissive manner of the cultural liberals.

        They will wave their hands and say sweeping things like "Oh, people can be good without a deity" as though that is the end of the matter.

        I agree that SOME people can maintain high moral standards under any prevailing cultural regime.

       Trouble is, these individuals are isolated and scattered.

       Everything about the few decades I have spent observing humanity teaches me that the powerful offices in society will be targeted for co-option by the depraved and cruel in order to better satisfy their lusts for endlessly increasing control and revenge against any who dare uphold a standard of decency based upon responsibility to a Creator.

       It's frightening that so few even begin to appreciate just how RARE and FRAGILE this space of relative pleasantness and decency is and how utterly DEPENDENT it is upon the people who make some good faith effort to uphold the Protestant conception of Judeo-Christian values.

       EVERYTHING has a tipping point. There is ALWAYS a certain point at which 'something' tips over into a state of being 'not that thing'. This is most especially true of constitutional republics having a particular concern for the protection of individual rights.

       I don't have the option of being an atheist any more than I am capable of believing that the sun will rise is the West tomorrow. But if I was an atheist, I would grasp onto the slightest doubt of my position to behave as though a Creator with a special care for It's creation is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. IT IS!!! Anything else is catastrophic insanity.

      Old hat indeed.

      On the gut emotional level, my response is "Chidren? Bone cancer!?!?!? ROOAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!?!?!?!?! D-8<" It makes me pray for a God above the God of this universe to come and chuck this God into the hottest fires of Hell. I'd like to go to the realm of this God simply to lunge at whatever might be It's throat.

     Of course, that is exactly the response so many manipulative creeps who love to make this argument are looking to provoke.

      On an intellectual level, my reaction is "What tiny-minded DRIVEL! So easy to shoot-down that argument in so many ways."

      On a moral level, I'm HORRIFIED and REVOLTED by this argument!!! Yes, many who make it are honest; but there is a HUGE sub-set of DEPRAVED characters running around out there using it to justify anything and everything. Their line of thinking runs "DON'T YOU DARE try to impose a faith based value system! People who do that are stupid neanderthals who would stand in the way of my enlightened activities! They deserve to SUFFER AND DIE!!!! D-8<"

      Let's imagine that Bill Gates is in fact a jerk who gets his jollies out of running around and stepping on the toes of strangers. He's not completely sociopathic, however. He compensates his victims with some brand-new Mercedes'.

    You might really dislike characters who like to step on the toes of others, even while knowing that every victim gains a new luxury auto. Despite your dislike, you might find yourself wishing that Gates comes and steps on your foot. You might be glad after he does.

     We don't know what, if anything, children who die of bone cancer are thinking about their ordeal.

        GL rates very high on my list.

        AmGraf and SW are the closest one could have gotten to perfect, for what they are and the extent they were financed. He should only direct movies with ridiculously low budgets, considering what is required. 

        He oversaw the California end of the directing in ESB, and supervised much of the overall directing of ROTJ.

        The PT was spectacular and an awesome technical achievement, though it had great inconsistencies with the OT in screenplay and FX.

      I agree that the story and screenplay should be assigned maximum importance.

     But it takes a good director to translate it to the screen.

         My favorite ENTERPRISE is the plastic model of the TOS ship that was hanging over my bed from age 4 to 10.5.

         It was locked in perpetual battle with a Klingon cruiser.

         TOS starbattles were understandably limited and far between. I would imagine more furious and noisey engagements.

         When the opening sequence of SW ran those enormous ships over my head, I thought "Yep, that's more like it!"

        TOS, movies 1-4, and AbramsTrek.

        Honorable mention to First Contact and the Enterprise crash in Generations.

        The other stuff had some great characters and episodes. Lots of great story concepts.

        Dunno, the rest just didn't quite click with me as "real Trek".

        I can see how others got into it, though.

         It's copywrite law that is sustaining these outmoded legacy media forms.

         The law is supposed to serve the consumers, ultimately. Instead it is serving established big media interests. They are deliberately confusing the market and limiting availability.

         It wouldn't require much to alter the law to allow internet streaming services to provide one-stop-shopping for all popular films, tv series, and music.

         Normally, I want as little interference from govmint as possible. But there are cases where the gov can empower the individual to make the purchases they would make anyway with greater efficiency and for greater quality.

        Everyone could receive a certain number of credits to spend on the media content of their choice. The big content generaters could be given a few years to make the big bucks and then paid to make digital forms for the net. Downloads could be monitored to pay content makers. The ten or twelve most improtant artists involved could be identified and ensured of royalties.

      All we would need is more taxes and debt :/

     Choose three games by lot and whichever team has won the most of those games advances

      STID, CA:TWS...

      I've actually been following the trend.

        Once in a while, I'd have a kid try to start in on me. I had a simple formula for dealing with it.

        Show no fear, show no hostility, show no desire to engage at all, try not to speak. I'd look at him sideways and shake my head in a little "I'm really not up for being messed with" gesture and seek to walk off. In my experience, bullies have no idea what to do with that.

        For stuff that doesn't involve a trip to the ER, kids really do need to learn how to cope.

        And kids need to learn that they should avoid engaging others in a way that might provoke bullying attention. There are "bullies", and there are kids who might engage in "bully" behavior if annoyed. There is no excuse for that, but it is understandable and in many cases avoidable.

        I learned a lesson about the futility of dealing with bullies when I was a kid.

        Halloween, my sister and I were out trick-or-treating and we, like several other kids, were shot by a teenager with a pellet gun.

        He had a little brother. I asked my father to let it go, but he was afraid some one's eye would be put out. He found the kid and called the cops to deal with it.

        I had always gotten along with the little brother, but one day he challenged me to a fight. I could tell his heart wasn't in it. It was like some creep was putting him up to it. We both punched each other once and then were happy to back-off.

       We avoided each other for the next couple of years. Then one day I got a call from the father. In a cold, snide way he claimed that my dog had tried to bite his son. I had never seen my dog be anything but friendly to everyone. He claimed that the dog had bit into the kid's winter coat. Later, I saw the kid's coat with a perfectly straight little cut, as if from scissors, that had been sewn-up.

        We had to put my dog to sleep.