bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Of course you can? And for whatever reason(s) you care to. I can place no requirement on you to limit what you find.
Welcome Guest!
Dr. Assisted Suicide
- Thread starter ambush80
- Start date
Of course you can? And for whatever reason(s) you care to. I can place no requirement on you to limit what you find.
Israel
BANNED
This is an interesting thing.
Do you understand?
The man who plays...and makes of himself both player...and umpire...
Look, it's far more than what was referred to recently..."If you don't play by the rules, no one will play with you..."
Someone must have thought themselves quite wise in that (not even thinly veiled) threat.
In fact...the whole of the Rule is: "It matters not if anyone else will play with you...at all"...negating affirmatively the foolishness of that first statement. It is of no consequence.
I affirm Jesus is right. Is all there is of rightness...righteousness.
Another man says "Jordan Peterson is right.!"
But in that shows he has not even heard Jordan Peterson...at all. (And if he can't hear what speaks to him of earthly things, while in an earthly thing {body}...how will hear Him who speaks from Heaven?)
Jordan Peterson is quite plainly stating "I will not be bound by force of law to answer you according to how you demand my response to you come".
Oh, yes, he says many things additionally...the things that grease the wheels to what he sees as a betterment in communication and understanding.
What is compelled by resort to "force of law"...even if that come as some sort of forum agreement...(and do not think God is ignorant of those using his Son's name...but show they are more than willing to not only enter this agreement...but endorse and promulgate it) how that they revile...grace. Men have a vain hope that God might be as ignorant and unseeing as themselves in the particular. But...only to themselves. Indulgent.
Yes, what must rely upon, and resort to force of law to extract a something from something, is weak...useless, a vanity. Thinking its power is increased in general agreement. To this premise is owed all forms of concupiscience...bargains made, exchanges, "deals cut"...
Do you say...but your God gave law? Oh yes, indeed. But not to an extracting a something from something, nor even by agreement of the ruled; all His law came from agreement within Himself...not to man's adjudicating the acceptableness of it. And His law is not given in desire of extracting...but in all un-vain hope of giving and providing a seeing. Of giving to man a sight. "I am not...God".
(Stop playing "player and umpire") for one can never see God in this estate. But...he will feel law. Oh...that's undeniable. In fact...that is all he will feel, the onerous burden of what keeps him to perfect frustration. Yet, in a hope.
If I were to bear false witness against you, or any other (and I would ask you...and any other if I have) "You are OUT!"...Sit down, shut up, say nothing more, your condition is irremediable, you've had your turn at bat...I would be liar. And full force of law is for liars, intended.
I make no claim to be all of truth, or to have always and only spoken it...God knows. I don't defend myself in this to a betterment inherent to myself...God knows. No, I am merely a quite selfish man who has tasted grace...beyond law, superior to law...and seek not for myself to be found again in that position of "having to taste law". Yes, I am quite...selfish, making no claim of an overwhelming beneficence to see you, or give you something "of myself" that is of any benefit to you, at all. For there is nothing "of myself" that is benefit to anyone...and chiefly me, learned in this little lab given where all my experimentation is accomplished.
Some think they will decide to "enter" this experiment. But, it is not at all up to them. They entered with first breath, and continue...with every subsequent one. And (appropriate to this thread) if they think the ending of breaths is "in their hands" to both will, and do...how blatantly they display their ignorance.
But...man has been given what is right toward ...patience. Ecce homo.
Last edited:
atlashunter
Senior Member
Stop responding to him and let him have dialogue with himself if that gives him satisfaction. He’s shown that is what he wants so leave him to it.
Yep; that's it.
Hey milk breath, if you don't like steak just say so. There's no shame in it.
...unless you're a lactose intolerant vegan that is.
atlashunter
Senior Member
Hey milk breath, if you don't like steak just say so. There's no shame in it.
...unless you're a lactose intolerant vegan that is.
I’m lactose intolerant but I just deal with it. Just don’t be around me after a big bowl of blue bell. And nothing beats a juicy ribeye. I’m hungry now. What were we talking about again?
all our intolerances
atlashunter
Senior Member
Ah yes. I think you were trying to insult me. So is that steak that Israel is serving up? I’m not the only one here that doesn’t seem to think so. He can continue serving it up to his hearts content and people can continue to not waste their time with him. That’s more tolerance than we can expect to receive a few floors up.
Ok I retract the part about your milk breath. That was mean. Sorry.
Maybe all of us are serving watermelon. So eat the good part and spit out the seeds. Howboutdat?
WaltL1
Senior Member
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Mmmm, cOnsEqUEncE...of little it is.
atlashunter
Senior Member
660griz
Senior Member
Seedless watermelon for me.
oldfella1962
Senior Member
steak flavored ice cream!
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
Sometimes.......... a bliss can be a rewarding attributeIn this day and age we describe that as "ignorance is bliss"
ignorance is bliss
[ignorance is bliss]
DEFINITION
if you do not know about something, you do not worry about it.
From a legal standpoint I agree. In giving this a fair assessment, I see some potential issues though. Most patients in this condition are on medications and most likely mind altering. Now how do you determine if this is really what they wanted?
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
I don’t view atheism as a religion or a belief system. They’ve discovered no higher power to look to in order to establish their conclusion.
For the couple of atheist that I personally know, their conclusion is really simple. They haven’t discovered any evidence for a higher power, but they’re not 100% positive that a higher power doesn’t exist.
Sort of like fishing and not catching anything, I hadn’t caught one so I don’t have any evidence, but I’m not 100% positive that there’s no fish in that pond. There’s still room for discovery.
I think my comment was fairly sound, the point was I don’t feel the need to disprove every other claim to confirm my claim. I found my evidence for my belief.
Israel
BANNED
Let's stay there...if we can.
What was Marcus Aurelius saying is of little consequence?
I believe we both know what Jesus says and I am asking if in any way this can be, might be, in any form to you and I, as of apples to apples.
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"
We are, you and I, on very equal ground here. We both speak from souls informed in something, by something.
Psyches, if you prefer.
Though I would contend a man's soul may be informed of what is called Spirit, that needn't be a hindrance, I cannot show or prove that to you to any superiority, it is enough that we stay within the confines of words spoken...by Aurelius, Jesus, myself, and you.
We needn't even, at this point, be much concerned with the why of their speaking, nor even, our own.
But, do we, if only you and I, agree...communication in some form...is taking place? Even if (and I cannot disagree) I am found "bad communicator", all of "self centered" communicator, poorest of communicators? Even to the most ridiculous description of simply "masturbatory" communicator? (I have learned the soul likes to "mouth off", shoot its seed when pressed, and ego stroked...and I cannot exempt myself from "ever" being found in that practice...just because I know of it, and that it takes place)
Yes...every one of us is getting seed on ourselves from one another.
Did you quote Marcus Aurelius believing he had some good seed? Some seed worthy of sharing? But, more importantly...did you quote it "to me"...in some hope?
But if, as he does say (and we will not even touch why a man who would say, if the sum of it is only "tis of little consequence" to observe the world, the universe, all that might be observed [to what a man might gain...of it] to whatever greater and lesser degree it might be in a hundred years or some far greater number, why he must have felt enough need to express "tis of little consequence")
"tis of little consequence" for if indeed it is...then even expression of that undercuts, in some way...the need to speak at all. But, he did.
And here's a curious thing, also. I have read that these words were found in his own journals...not (seemingly) ever meant for publication. That's interesting to me. Is it to you? A man whose thoughts are his own...still finds a need to write them down...even if only for himself. Speaking...to himself. Did Marcus even know...a man's thoughts, man's own mind, either needs, or benefits by...reminder? Can bear...reminding? Might not...even to itself...be the best and most hermetically sealed container to itself, for itself? We do not know.
Or was he simply...masturbating? Supplying his own pleasure...to himself?
Or...was he very clever? Trusting his journals would be found...seen, read...by at the very least..one other? That's either a risk...or a hope, no? That we can't know. "I risk being found if I record this...I hope being found, by recording this." We may never know.
All we may know now is that regardless of his motives, the "cat is out of the bag".
And enough so that two people (at the very least) are using them between themselves. Two millennia later.
Does their antiquity...diminish them?
Is there such rust and corruption of time upon them to be so very useless in 2018 than when first penned?
Then...why do they appear? For derision? I think not. I really don't think (and correct me if I am wrong) you thought them vain and useless in your first introduction of them. But, am I wrong? Or...did you see a timeless thing in them? A useful thing...in them?
Regardless of whether Marcus Aurelius approved of germ theory, the physics of matter and anti matter, Boyles law or microwave energy.
He was speaking of the nature of man...and what he might (and more specifically...not) gain by either much observing (and perhaps) might even accrue to (read again, gain) in the comprehending. A man can only lose his now.
"The present moment is all which either is deprived of, since that is all he has, a man cannot part with what he has not" Italics mine
That's very interesting. Very interesting...in truth. I cannot help but see (and all and any are free to correct my seeing) his saying of this is in refutation of a thing.
The need to say this: "a man cannot part with what he has not" refutes all mis-comprehending a man might have in thinking he can lose something he does not have. He does not have tomorrow, he does not even have a "past" in the sense of ability of possessing it in this very moment...all he has is the present moment...which alone...may be lost. He has nothing at all...except the present moment, and his presence in it.
What then? Is there a liar amongst us? Marcus Aurelius may appear...in this present moment? Through his words assumed of truth? Christopher Hitchens? Stephen Hawking? Will we drag over Neil de Grasse Tyson? Jordan Peterson or even Paul the apostle? Have a care as to whom you would allow...whom you think you have power to forbid. For in any allowance you undercut your right of forbidding equal voice.
Aurelius has been brought into our now to say a thing about a man not being able to lose what he does not have. And in such saying to refute the notion that a man might think...he has what he does not.
I do not bring Jesus "in". He's already here. Or...could a man, would a man be able to rightly say "all are given permission to appear now...except Jesus Christ?" I would say, as one appearing now...beware what you forbid. Or think...you can.
To him who has, more will be given, but to him who has not even that which he thinks he has, shall be taken from him.
How much now do each have? All the same? All differing? God knows. But each man will know to a surety...what he has "now".
If I warn, I warn as your brother.
If I may comfort or encourage any, (dare I even hope it? To hope to be as some of you have already been so clearly made to me?) you are found the nobler for bearing with me in my foolishness. And may I then be ennobled...to be found as your brother.
I risk being found out...in very hope...of being found.
NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...
That's all there is in now, may each be found in it.
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Sorry but I am through engaging in conversation when it is only at your convenience.
There is no "we" in this conversation. I tried that and you refuse to give any answer that is honest, to the point or outside of your comfort zone. Instead of answering direct questions you deflect and go on these rants to churn your own butter. It is long past tiring.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Those people you know are agnostics.
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
You’re correct as far as terminology is concerned. It’s just my view that they’re basically the same. I admit that I don’t know everything about either so it’s opinionated.
That being said, it’s still my view (opinion) that Athiesm is not a religion, but from a terminology perspective, I guess they can still be a belief system???
