Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Wednesday April 23rd, 2014: No Call In Show

Thursday and Friday April 24-25th, 2014: The Next Web Conference in Amsterdam

Friday April 25th, 2014: Watch Stefan's Speech LIVE at 9:20am Eastern

Saturday April 26th, 2014: Freedomain Radio Meet-Up in Amsterdam

Sunday April 27th, 2014: No Call In Show


56 Philosopher King files - 71 Gold files - 40 Silver files - 50 Bronze files


Update: A new silver level file on Toxic Guilt and The Credibility Bank Account has been added! Click here to donate if you'd like access to the various premium sections. If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Photo

Some say Jesus will survive.


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1
Dominick

Dominick
  • 621 posts

You need sound for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwarlo5YrzI&mode=related&search=

 

dominick
 


  • 0
"The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this–
that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot." - Lysander Spooner

#2
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19731 posts
Dang, that was my original costume for FDR500...

  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#3
CCS

CCS
  • 851 posts

When hearing that song in relation to Jesus I thought it was going to be him talking about the jews or the roman empire.

Thinking about it now the begining lyrics must be how people who lose faith with religion must feel.

First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned how to carry on


  • 0
If two people agree on everything, one of them is not thinking.

#4
Blank

Blank


  • 14136 posts

Dang, that was my original costume for FDR500...

A diaper and a wreath?

  • 0

#5
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19731 posts
Well, a wreath anyway... [<:o)]
  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#6
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

I find it disheartening to mock and attempt to make a fool of Jesus and the Christian faith.
Would you post a mocking racial video... hey it's a free country, and that video is a bit funny as well as the follow-up one.


I hope it makes people laugh as well as think critically in more than one way.
For me the second video made me think the following in particular...

If I were put back in time, bearing witness to the death of a man who by democratic vote which I guess is sort of like a jury of his "peers" but who was obviously innocent of anything warranting death, maybe he got angry with some people two times in the Biblical account and only acted on it once in the temple turning over some chairs and disrupting some commerce there... but where would I be?  Would I be among those who struck him, mocked him and called for his violent death?  Now really, where would anyone here logically be?  If any "self-proclaimed" practitioner of UPB would claim they would be in that violent and bullying camp, and if any would voluntarily choose to be in that camp today... wow! What would that be saying?
Does wanting to make the entire story a fabrication and false and seeking to do that and spread that not in some way also "kill" and "silence" and "suppress" that person who is at  worst if a story a non-violent expression of rebellion against a violent religion and statist empire at the time of the story?  Which seems contradictory to logic here?  Me having faith or "liking" what is said in that story and the morality of the story... whether it is taken by me a being factual or fanciful?  It is similar to being anti-John Galt and making a silly story exaggerating and mocking the individual described in the works of Ayn Rand to ignore the principles that she was trying to exemplify by the prose and characters and their interactions... so why would one choose to be anti-Christ, anti-Jesus and not mention any teachings - in context, word-for-word and look for the logical path to see where one would be in that story when applying UPB and reasoning?   In retrospect, should I come to a logical conclusion that I have given aid and money to the wrong group of neighbors?  Should I revisit my freedom of choice and direct my support elsewhere because of this seemingly illogical contradiction and hypocrisy? As a Christian, should I be sensing a hostility towards me and my logical mind?

I am not a philosopher... but I do think and reason... perhaps this will be enough proof or a theory atleast... my thesis is that a UPB practitioner would be on the side of Jesus.

 

May I borrow some words "true followers of UPB" ok a thinking and rational person... take your pick for words.
Those who logically accept UPB as the most moral way to interact, the highest ethical code of conduct for human beings... whether they be dealing with children or adults, sane or insane, a deity or a person claiming to be or mistaken to be a deity... I think if they placed themselves into the shoes of the man asking about the law in The Good Samaritan story below... and also with the reasoning of the character of Jesus in this entire chapter... that they would answer "correctly" according to Jesus. I would argue even further that a test of this faith/morality/ethics/belief/logic is congruent enough that rather than just being fantasy  they would if not hypocrites would be prove my theory - if given the opportunity in life today, to be a "Good Samaritan" - and be the exemplified Good Neighbor. One could merely exchange Samaritan with the label "Atheist who practices UPB" and I also think the same individuals would also be proven to be more appreciative of the value of the Silver exchanges, and the subjective value of helping aid a man become well who is witness to robbers along a trade route, and a witness to those in power in society who are self-righteous hypocrites - i.e., NOT GOOD NEIGHBORS and that they would want to testify/publish along with the man given aid to their neighbors this information in order to help find and create justice and safety in their society if none would otherwise exist... and that they would do this regardless of the religious sect/belief difference of them and others around them or any other strife that may separate them as human beings.

Is this story and chapter in context, not a form of rational and logical proof that we are all children and human beings in common... and able to be descendants of a form of logical justice, determining GOOD and BAD, of logically reasoning what would be preferable and unpreferable human behavior and rational thinking?  Thinking an innocent man is guilty and doing nothing to render aid to stop the violence, coercion and ostracism, is as bad as taking action against the man calling him guilty falsely/erroneously and casting stones of discord or even taking action of whipping him and hammering in nails to hang him by suffocation as a gruesome example to all the people to never challenge the existing authorities and systems of violent coercion in this world.

Answer me however you choose and reason... it is a free country.  
I will continue my support this site for 3 months regardless of the responses I receive - if any.
Beyond that time period however will depend upon whether I can logically judge the individuals here as being GOOD neighbors or BAD by any rational standard - regardless of faith/religion/theism/atheism.  I look forward to enjoying the mutual journey of self-discovery and finding along the way intelligent and empathic human beings to call good neighbors so we can mutually support one another by thinking together if nothing else... that thought policing and improvement is what matters most... to grow our emotional intelligence and change the world that we live in so it is rational and just.

 

That's all from me... 

Cor Prudentis Possidebit Scientiam

~Steve~ 
Steven Charles Morreale, M.D./M.P.H.

a.k.a. docgnu

For your consideration.

 

Luke 10

New King James Version (NKJV)

The Seventy Sent Out

10 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also,[a] and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. Then He said to them, “The harvest truly isgreat, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. But whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us[b] we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’12 But[c] I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.

Woe to the Impenitent Cities

13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.[d] 16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

The Seventy Return with Joy

17 Then the seventy[e] returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”

18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather[f] rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”

Jesus Rejoices in the Spirit

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 22 All[g] things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

23 Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see;24 for I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?

27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’[h] and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’[i]

28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[j] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”

37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Mary and Martha Worship and Serve

38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’[k] feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.”

41 And Jesus[l] answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things.42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”

 


  • -1

#7
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator


  • 1233 posts

Hmmm,

 

Serious necro-bump

 

Supports Christianity

 

Advertises education

 

Should be interesting...

 

 

Verses 1-16, so you come in to help them reap the harvest. If they pay you, then they are good. If they have enough laborers already, then you get to curse the ground and make threats that what will happen to them will be worse than what happened in Sodom in Gomorrah (Everyone was slaughtered by God, including women and children and Lot's wife. She shouldn't have looked back). It includes a couple threats by name of course.

 

17-20 This is just nonsense. Spirits, demons, Satan all don't exist.

 

21-24  Jesus does a bit of self-aggrandizement to help his disciples think they are super-special. Of course, it is manipulative and not true that "His Father" exists.

 

25-28 God doesn't exist, so this first rule is garbage. The second rule is the golden rule which has already been extensively examined and rejected. I recommend pulling up some of those threads.

 

29-37 I would agree with this. That being a religious man and screwing and walking by an injured guy on the road would not be very virtuous. Because of the religious teaching and walking by the guy.

 

38-42 More people worship Jesus to feed his ego and fight about the right way to do it.

 

I don't see where this rational ethics is in here....


  • 0

#8
Alan Chapman

Alan Chapman

  • 4663 posts

I find it disheartening to mock and attempt to make a fool of Jesus and the Christian faith.

 

Why?


  • 0

#9
Mick Bynes

Mick Bynes

  • 134 posts

Wow, extraordinarily funny!  It is funny to me, because I know Jesus Christ never existed.  It is no problem if he is made fun of.  He is just a fictional character like God and Satan.  I know Christ and God do not exist... they never existed and they never will exist.


  • 0

"I've never seen a homeless guy with a bottle of Gatorade" - George Carlin


#10
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

Why?

What is VIRTUE?


  • 0

#11
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

Of course one would have empathy (and sympathy) for a man that faced a similar fate to that of Jesus. But I think attributing the broader criticism given to Christianity and the ideas he propagated himself, are not necessarily signs of a lack of empathy for a person that faced execution.

 

For instance, whilst I may heap just criticism on Prime-minister David Cameron's political machinations. I can certainly feel empathy for when he lost a child recently. It is quite reasonable and healthy to discriminate in this manner.


  • 0

#12
Alan Chapman

Alan Chapman

  • 4663 posts

What is VIRTUE?

 

virtue - moral excellence; goodness; righteousness; conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.

 

What does that have to do with Jesus and Christianity?

 

Jesus is nothing but an ancient comic-book superhero; he never existed.

 

Christianity is plagiarized astro-theology, sky-worship allegories, and folklore.


  • 1

#13
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

Thank you for all of the replies.


Wow, extraordinarily funny!  It is funny to me, because I know Jesus Christ never existed.  It is no problem if he is made fun of.  He is just a fictional character like God and Satan.  I know Christ and God do not exist... they never existed and they never will exist.

I can appreciate what you are trying to say.
However, upon closer examination this answer doesn't make any rational sense to me and only gratifies you at the expense of others.
I argue that it is an intentional and rather genious way of violating the NAP, because words and mockery really does no harm, one only has to be the one nailing in the cross and whipping or pushing believers into lions' dens to be violating the NAP right? but it is violating the YAD axiom.

When you play with children... do you behave with similar virtue?
Let's say you are invited to enjoy a "tea time" and the child has you pour tea for someone not there... and they tell you it is their "friend" who is invisible and they tell you all about them... would it be appropriate to deride attributes that are positive virtues that they share with you about their friend and would you be able to justify it for real by saying "but the friend isn't real"?  Would it be appropriate for you to tell the child that you are pouring the invisible friend poison instead of tea (even if it is pretend poison)? No because it would be intentionally traumatic and inciting a physiological response that would be negative in the child.  Also, and most importantly, you would be in major violation of the YAD axiom...

you'd be a huge dick... and the parents would justifiably be permitted to employ a shit ton of aggression upon you for doing it.

 

So it is with the children of God and believers in Jesus being the Christ....

You'd also be in violation of the YAD axiom if you were making derisive statements and videos of the fans of any cultural icon - whether it be real or imaginary.  Don't talk shit on YODA or SPOCK, and probably at a convention among serious followers it may come to violence, or some harsh rational thinking!

 

One can say they are not real, fairy tales, astro-comic books, whatever, and mostly I would also argue this comes from however you have as an adult freely chosen to reconcile some childhood memory or experience with hypocrites from that faith or other religious beliefs.  There are many contradictions when one is looking to find them, just as one can find many contradictions in the applied logic of libertarians... and a shit ton of YAD axiom violators everywhere.  

Now if the child was telling you they were celebrating tea with their invisible friend who was going to put all of the Jews and Christians into a furnace when they grow up... would you celebrate this invisible friend and the child's rational reasoning?  I mean it isn't real, just a fantasy, right?  No because you'd be a sociopath and encouraging sociopathy rather than virtue, the NAP and YAD axioms being learned and cultivated.


  • 0

#14
FriendlyHacker

FriendlyHacker

  • 252 posts

Jesus won't survive with me around, I actually know how to kill Zombies. None of that flesh eating, blood drinking bullshit on my watch.


  • 0

#15
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

I can appreciate what you are trying to say.

However, upon closer examination this answer doesn't make any rational sense to me and only gratifies you at the expense of others.
I argue that it is an intentional and rather genious way of violating the NAP, because words and mockery really does no harm, one only has to be the one nailing in the cross and whipping or pushing believers into lions' dens to be violating the NAP right? but it is violating the YAD axiom.

Now if the child was telling you they were celebrating tea with their invisible friend who was going to put all of the Jews and Christians into a furnace when they grow up... would you celebrate this invisible friend and the child's rational reasoning?  I mean it isn't real, just a fantasy, right?  No because you'd be a sociopath and encouraging sociopathy rather than virtue, the NAP and YAD axioms being learned and cultivated.

 

I don't see any rational thinking here, whether imagined or otherwise.. And what on earth is the YAD axiom (even Google doesn't know).


  • 0

#16
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

Hmmm,

 

Serious necro-bump

 

Supports Christianity

 

Advertises education

 

Should be interesting...

 

 

Verses 1-16, so you come in to help them reap the harvest. If they pay you, then they are good. If they have enough laborers already, then you get to curse the ground and make threats that what will happen to them will be worse than what happened in Sodom in Gomorrah (Everyone was slaughtered by God, including women and children and Lot's wife. She shouldn't have looked back). It includes a couple threats by name of course.

 

17-20 This is just nonsense. Spirits, demons, Satan all don't exist.

 

21-24  Jesus does a bit of self-aggrandizement to help his disciples think they are super-special. Of course, it is manipulative and not true that "His Father" exists.

 

25-28 God doesn't exist, so this first rule is garbage. The second rule is the golden rule which has already been extensively examined and rejected. I recommend pulling up some of those threads.

 

29-37 I would agree with this. That being a religious man and screwing and walking by an injured guy on the road would not be very virtuous. Because of the religious teaching and walking by the guy.

 

38-42 More people worship Jesus to feed his ego and fight about the right way to do it.

 

I don't see where this rational ethics is in here....

Wesley,

I would be very interested in seeing the results of a functional MRI scan of your brain while you watched these two videos, and then "The Passion of The Christ" film by Mel Gibson.  

Did one or more individuals who were educated and claimed to be of the Christian faith - but who were not themselves virtuous - harm you in some way during your childhood? If so then I am very sorry and forgive you for violating the YAD axiom in your reply. 
 

-Steve


I don't see and rational thinking here, whether imagined or otherwise.. And what on earth is the YAD axiom (even Google doesn't know).

 

YAD - the YOU'RE A DICK axiom... Stefan has covered it very well with even a really great voice for the "libertarian" over-thinkers. I think it deserves an academy award!

Your reply Xelent actually was not a YAD violation yours made sense to me. I will reply to it separately. The YAD was to a different responder.


Jesus won't survive with me around, I actually know how to kill Zombies. None of that flesh eating, blood drinking bullshit on my watch.

Bullshit: one man's bull feces is another man's fertile soil.
Do you logically reason that you can spread the non-aggression principle and end the use of religion to teach virtue with your approach, whether it is a threat of fantasy violence or otherwise? 

 


  • 0

#17
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator


  • 1233 posts
Your reply did not address where there was a rational philosophy in the versus you quoted.

It was passive-aggressive.

YAD is not an axiom. The only axiom is that relationships are voluntary. If you thought I was being a dick for some reason, then you do not have to associate with me. If others agree, then I would lose credibility or be ostracized. Not to mention that this isn't really an argument as to what I said that was "being a dick". I was a little snarky at the beginning, but I moved on to analyze the versus and try to find the point you were getting at. Which I couldn't.

When I was a Christian, I saw the passion once a week on Easter after it came out. The movie is just a torture fest that tries to make you feel guilty for crimes you didn't commit. I would not watch it now because I hate seeing gore.

Every Christian I knew who talked about raising kids or who I saw interacting with kids was a child abuser. This included the people who taught me an both my parents. Even the act of indoctrinating children with false beliefs would be considered child abuse.

90% of parents spank their kids. It is more common in religious communities. Not to mention punishments of time-out, withdrawal, verbal abuse, etc. Not to mention that teaching your kids Christianity and other false beliefs as true would be abusing and confusing to a child. Thus, I think every Christian I knew (just playing the odds) was probably a child abuser.
  • 0

#18
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

Of course one would have empathy (and sympathy) for a man that faced a similar fate to that of Jesus. But I think attributing the broader criticism given to Christianity and the ideas he propagated himself, are not necessarily signs of a lack of empathy for a person that faced execution.

 

For instance, whilst I may heap just criticism on Prime-minister David Cameron's political machinations. I can certainly feel empathy for when he lost a child recently. It is quite reasonable and healthy to discriminate in this manner.

Ok, if you are looking at the video as some form of a broader criticism of Christian ideas... or ideas Jesus propagated?
So I presume the biggest idea you don't agree with propagating is that he was resurrected from the dead?  You would say what? That the entire story and individual named Jesus never lived and that anything related to him is a complete fabrication?

Let's say that 100 years from now... a known fictional story is somehow adopted by a large number of human beings to be TRUTH and not fiction and let's say that all of the parts of that story are turned into moral lessons to teach how to act and behave towards others... that they take on a divine signification.
Would it be a violation of the NAP to deride characters in the story knowing that it will cause discomfort to the followers of this fictional story?

I presume you would argue that the truths in the story if teaching universal virtue are the most important parts... that the story is merely a conveyance for sharing these lessons. Right?

What are the criticisms of Jesus? Besides being an atheist saying he is lying to people that there is a God.
Is he telling anyone to be violent towards others?
Anywhere there is a mention of a threat of violence it is for some future time when all people will be judged for not being virtuous.
In fact, when the people by any measure are not virtuous towards him - turning him in to the state, inciting false charges, inciting a beating, and inciting his death/murder... he according to the story forgave them. Now maybe he was a real guy, maybe he was insane... he didn't deserve death, maybe he even said FUCK EVERYONE OF YOU when on the cross. But that is not the story passed on to teach moral virtues in the Christian faith.

I respect all religions, I do not have to believe in or follow any of them. I view mocking any of them to be a violation of the NAP and the YAD axiom.
That's my point. If one can't follow that logic, then I recommend reading an introductory anthropology book to learn a little about studying a foreign culture without getting killed or bringing into your observations your own biases so that you can more objectively observe the subjectively experienced phenomenon around you.
 


  • 0

#19
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

No, I follow you now... So how do you feel about priests telling children they will go to hell if they don't worship Christ?


  • 0

#20
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

No, I follow you now... So how do you feel about priests telling children they will go to hell if they don't worship Christ?

I reason that they are in major violation of the NAP and even the YAD axiom!
 

Worshiping anything first is fraudulent... what would be the difference between saying worship this tree or the sun.

Also doing something just to get into heaven or to avoid pain is also fraudulent.

Doing something in the present and taking time to think of the pluripotent choices before a child is vitally important.

This is the start of reason and being rational, is it not?
Why am I here?
What am I to do now?

A compensatory pause to contemplate options and potential realities in the immediate future and in the longer term future.

There is a very real utility to this being part of a child's teaching and mastery.

Religions help with it in my view.

The individual may not be able to fully fathom reality and consequences of their actions in the immediate which may be pleasurable

and in the long term which may have the opposite consequence. So having a heaven and hell has a pragmatic reference point.

It permits the teaching of logic using imagined reference points.  Getting caught up in defining those reference points is really beyond

the exercise and I do believe that the story of Jesus does not define heaven or hell beyond allegory and parables but instead refocuses

the student(s) to the point of the matter in their present to direct their behaviors more virtuously with a promise for a longer term reward.

 

It is important to take pauses in life to compensate and settle one's emotional mind and to focus one's mental and physical energy to the most empathic place it can be put - an imagined deity full of compassion and forgiveness, would be a virtuous example of this.

So I find it informative to have the Lord's prayer and found it helpful to really focus on what it was saying with the best of my understanding rather than vainly repeating it like a robot as if it were lyrics to a song but that I didn't really think about or take to heart.

I believe this ritual has a very significant purpose and has a real neurobiological effect.
 

I can not say that is proof of an afterlife or a deity... but it is how our brains are wired and it can be helpful.
I do not think it is necessary to throw out religion entirely when it makes sense to people. Maybe I am wrong... but I find it more helpful to be welcoming individuals of faith and being able to non-emotionally be obstructed to hearing them and experiencing what they are trying to share.

Sometimes I am able to even draw upon a story or line of scripture that is relevant, Maybe it is all bullshit... or maybe it is all fertilizer? ;-)

 

 


  • 0

#21
FriendlyHacker

FriendlyHacker

  • 252 posts

Bullshit: one man's bull feces is another man's fertile soil.

Do you logically reason that you can spread the non-aggression principle and end the use of religion to teach virtue with your approach, whether it is a threat of fantasy violence or otherwise? 

 

Sir, I think you've misplaced your sense humor, do you remember where you used it the last time? Might still be laying there somewhere hard to find.


  • 0

#22
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

I'll be honest I'm very suspicious of great walls of text in answer to such a short question. And your rather aggressive manner with others on this thread aren't helping matters either. However, as it seems, your argument can be neatly summed up in the following manner I think. let me know If I've misunderstood you.

 

A argues for their imaginary friend as kind and benvolent. B suggests this friend is obnoxious and hateful.

B has broken NAP. A has not

 

A argues for their imaginary friend as kind and benvolent. B accepts this imaginary friend as they are described by person A

B has not broken NAP. A has not

 

A argues that their imaginary friend is cruel and viscious. B suggests this friend is obnoxious and hateful

B has not broken NAP. A has

 

A argues that their imaginary friend is cruel and viscious. B accepts this imaginary friend as they are described by person A

B has broken NAP. A has


  • 0

#23
FriendlyHacker

FriendlyHacker

  • 252 posts

Why would calling Jesus a flesh eating zombie be aggressive? Saying I will initiate violence against Jesus is like saying I will initiate violence against Sauron, Zeus, Santa Claus, the All Knowing Underpants Gnomes or Mohammed's flying donkey.


  • 0

#24
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

I'll be honest I'm very suspicious of great walls of text in answer to such a short question. And your rather aggressive manner with others on this thread aren't helping matters either. However, as it seems, your argument can be neatly summed up in the following manner I think. let me know If I've misunderstood you.

 

A argues for their imaginary friend as kind and benvolent. B suggests this friend is obnoxious and hateful.

B has broken NAP. A has not

 

A argues for their imaginary friend as kind and benvolent. B accepts this imaginary friend as they are described by person A

B has not broken NAP. A has not

 

A argues that their imaginary friend is cruel and viscious. B suggests this friend is obnoxious and hateful

B has not broken NAP. A has

 

A argues that their imaginary friend is cruel and viscious. B accepts this imaginary friend as they are described by person A

B has broken NAP. A has

 

I appreciate your view that a simplification is warranted and your observation about length of post and that I was giving back some shit to those who I viewed were giving me some first.

You have succeeded in reducing to abstraction and absurdity.

To make what I said very simple to follow, what I argued was:

Derision, mockery and ridicule = a violation of the NAP

 

It does not matter who or what is being ridiculed.... or else there is no UPB!

Furthermore, if one is trying to share UPB and the NAP with people who were socialized to view virtue through a religious allegory then it is best to know the allegory very well and across cultural perspectives there is no utility of deriding the belief system because the individuals from that tradition will be hostile in response and rightfully so.

 

Is that clear enough?


  • -2

#25
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

Derision, mockery and ridicule = a violation of the NAP

 

It does not matter who or what is being ridiculed.... or else there is no UPB!

 

It's a pity you couldn't have said it so succinctly in the first place. Although I would make this a little shorter even.

 

Offending someone = A violation of the NAP

 

Interesting, this is very much a leftist appeal to morality. It has very little to do with the NAP or UPB for that matter. Although I would suggest reading the chapters under APA, aesthetically preferred actions, where some of your thoughts may have some traction.

 

Children that experiment with invisible friends are quite different to adults that do with children. Children are merely experimenting as they become more cognitive with the world around them. An adult that does the same is deliberately manufacturing a reality the child cannot see. Doesn't matter that it might be full of fluffy pink bunnies, as it's very course and manipulative to tell them it is true.

 

You perhaps want to take a listen to one of Stefan's early podcasts, 'The Invisible Apple'. I'm unable to locate it right now, but it discusses this topic in detail.


  • 0

#26
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

It's a pity you couldn't have said it so succinctly in the first place. Although I would make this a little shorter even.

 

Offending someone = A violation of the NAP

 

Interesting, this is very much a leftist appeal to morality. It has very little to do with the NAP or UPB for that matter. Although I would suggest reading the chapters under APA, aesthetically preferred actions, where some of your thoughts may have some traction.

 

Children that experiment with invisible friends are quite different to adults that do with children. Children are merely experimenting as they become more cognitive with the world around them. An adult that does the same is deliberately manufacturing a reality the child cannot see. Doesn't matter that it might be full of fluffy pink bunnies, as it's very course and manipulative to tell them it is true.

 

You perhaps want to take a listen to one of Stefan's early podcasts, 'The Invisible Apple'. I'm unable to locate it right now, but it discusses this topic in detail.

Well I certainly don't want to be a leftist... but some remnants of leftist thinking probably remain.

Thank you for the recommendations I will definitely check it out.

Is anthropology leftist and irrational?


  • 0

#27
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator


  • 1233 posts

I believe this is it xelent:

 

 

FDR 70. How to control a human soul


  • 0

#28
FriendlyHacker

FriendlyHacker

  • 252 posts

Mockery of holy ghosts is considered aggression? As far as I understand, it has to be a real person, and the person needs to perceive danger/aggression on the mockery.


  • 0

#29
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

I believe this is it xelent:

 

 

FDR 70. How to control a human soul

That is deep!


  • 0

#30
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

Well I certainly don't want to be a leftist... but some remnants of leftist thinking probably remain.

Thank you for the recommendations I will definitely check it out.

Is anthropology leftist and irrational?

 

Well leftist thinking is so deeply embedded in our culture, it's no surprise to me that people don't always spot it. The trouble with treating offense as a moral claim, is that one mans offense is another mans agreement. It's highly subjective for the most part.

 

Leftist ideology relies on this offense claim (as moral) all the time when they make arguments against sexism, rascism or homphobia etc. This is meant to shut down discourse and privelege a particular class of people in favour to another. There is a claim for civility within these claims of course, which in certain instances are quite reasonable and indeed rational. Hence my suggestion to investigate APA within Stefan's book UPB.

 

I know that some people have accused Anthropologists of lefitst and irrational thinking. They certainly have been responsible for the 'Noble Savage' idea. Whether that means all antropologists are irrational, I would doubt that I think.

 

Thanks Wesley for finding the podcast.


  • 0

#31
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

Well leftist thinking is so deeply embedded in our culture, it's no surprise to me that people don't always spot it. The trouble with treating offense as a moral claim, is that one mans offense is another mans agreement. It's highly subjective for the most part.

 

Leftist ideology relies on this offense claim (as moral) all the time when they make arguments against sexism, rascism or homphobia etc. This is meant to shut down discourse and privelege a particular class of people in favour to another. There is a claim for civility within these claims of course, which in certain instances are quite reasonable and indeed rational. Hence my suggestion to investigate APA within Stefan's book UPB.

 

I know that some people have accused Anthropologists of lefitst and irrational thinking. They certainly have been responsible for the 'Noble Savage' idea. Whether that means all antropologists are irrational, I would doubt that I think.

 

Thanks Wesley for finding the podcast.

I studied anthropology as an undergraduate and did research in anthropology before medical school. I never really liked the cultural stuff, I was into biological and physical anthropology - much more empiric and rational without any political agenda.  I'll check out the APA.
The talk by Stefan is quite damning of many things cultures do based on mythology.  I wonder why such practices began among people living in smaller social groups to start with... I can understand the malevolent angle but find it a little too evil to fully accept.  


  • 0

#32
docgnu

docgnu

  • 15 posts

I shared the insight I got from the podcast above with my GF we are both Christians and she is more than I and it wasn't really received very well... even though she is really tortured by her faith right now. Long story for another time. Thank you everyone for the posts. 
 


  • 0

#33
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

I shared the insight I got from the podcast above with my GF we are both Christians and she is more than I and it wasn't really received very well... even though she is really tortured by her faith right now. Long story for another time. Thank you everyone for the posts.

 

I am sorry to hear that. Certainly a lot of Stefan's stuff, can feel like a bitter pill sometimes the first time round.

 

Just a recommendation, in case UPB is all new to you. I would suggest first reading On Truth, The Tyranny of Illusion, before digging into UPB. I think you will find better context and understanding that way.

 

All available here for free of course.


  • 0

#34
Ruben Z

Ruben Z

  • 415 posts

Well leftist thinking is so deeply embedded in our culture, it's no surprise to me that people don't always spot it. The trouble with treating offense as a moral claim, is that one mans offense is another mans agreement. It's highly subjective for the most part.

 

Leftist ideology relies on this offense claim (as moral) all the time when they make arguments against sexism, rascism or homphobia etc. This is meant to shut down discourse and privelege a particular class of people in favour to another. There is a claim for civility within these claims of course, which in certain instances are quite reasonable and indeed rational. Hence my suggestion to investigate APA within Stefan's book UPB.

 

Fascinating.

 

So how about this scenario: I had this female FB friend that connected to me after about 15 years of silence, a woman I knew at the time from a meditation / esoteric movement where I was into at the time.

She hadn't made any comments on my posts ever since we exchanged our initial "Hi" , and I soon decided to dismiss her posts from my end. FB is nice like that, it's just a setting, no hassle.

 

Upon seeing the( hilarious!) Jesus vid, which I had shared on FB after finding it in this thread the friend responds: "Not funny, I almost had a heart attack..".

 

And this really got to me, I felt my heart rate increase, got all tense for a while, felt guilty, and then I realised it's exactly that:  An appeal to immorality for having been offended and shocked. The passive aggressive ( and positively false) threat of having had a near heart-attack after voluntarily watching my Facebook content, self-invited no less.

I'm really offended.


  • 0

#35
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

Hey Ruben, there is nothing wrong with being offended. People offend me all the time. I'm just saying it isn't a moral claim. You have every right to disassociate yourself from people you don't agree with. Or don't agree with you on some subjective premise.

 

This ladies projection of a faux heart attack, is an attempt to suggest your preference is immoral. So I say 'ef her', unless you really want to talk it through with her of course. :)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users