No conversion here. When I say I am racional I merely am saying that I approach issues more often with the head than with the heart.
And I also donīt reject religion, I donīt know what one thing has to do with the other. I try to keep an open mind for things I donīt understand. Thatīs all.
And that is all I have to say on that matter. I donīt feel that religious discussions are fruitfull.
Last edited by Danik 2016; 09-16-2016 at 10:48 PM.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
Okay, fine. I mean, I remember you telling me once that "we" had moved beyond religion, which is probably how got the idea you rejected it. But I certainly respect your privacy and your opinion.
I was unaware of the US invading the Soviet Union. As far as whether I would support such a thing, I am more or less a pacifist and so I would say that I would not although I don't know the details.Originally Posted by Red Terror
I donīt remember the particular issue or thread. We had an discussion about the use of "we". It was in fact an language issue, something I only noticed when you objected to it. In Portuguese one often uses "we" when one means one. Since that discussion I always have used one to avoid the appearance of indignant bunny ears under my post.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
I wasn't lying.
Also you can search for "shared death experiences" or "after death communication" for information about other people who have seen "ghosts".
Also, you might want to read your own sacred texts if you need evidence for "ghosts". Christianity is based on the ghost stories of people who saw Jesus after his death.
Okay look, you said you didn't want to pursue this, and now you're pursuing it. I walked away and you kept going. You are telling me now that when you said we you meant I because of Portuguese idiom. That's fine, but it also means that when you said "we" had moved beyond religion, you meant that YOU had moved beyond religion. So can you also say that you don't reject religion (for yourself, I mean)?I donīt remember the particular issue or thread. We had an discussion about the use of "we". It was in fact an language issue, something I only noticed when you objected to it. In Portuguese one often uses "we" when one means one. Since that discussion I always have used one to avoid the appearance of indignant bunny ears under my post.
I think you are trying to have things both ways. If you believe in ghosts but you don't believe in God, then fine. You have a right to your opinion, so stand by it. But straight answers please. Your hemming and hawing is driving me nuts.
So let's try this again:
Do you believe in ghosts?
Do you believe in God?
And may I suggest that if you "don't feel religious discussions are fruitful" you might not want to post on discussions in the religion forum?
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-17-2016 at 11:00 AM.
Do you mean the American Expeditionary force Siberia http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/siberia.htm ? That's all I found on Google. Hardly "an invasion of the Soviet Union". Or did I miss something?
Exit, pursued by a bear.
That website is a whitewash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What else can one expect of those "winners" who "write history". Fourteen foreign armies invaded Soviet Russia during these years: USA, England, France Japan among others --- a little over 100,000 troops invaded Russia and you call that "hardly an invasion"????
Imagine if the opposite had happened; you would never hear the end of it in the USA. Instead we are treated to great Hollywood productions like Red Dawn (starring Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, and C. Thomas Howell) showing how the Soviets, the Cubans and the Nicaraguans all invade the USA and are repulsed by a handful of teenage guerrillas in the Rocky Mountains. Television movies like Invasion USA and Amerika also depict America being invaded by the commies. The Americans and their allies, contrary to the claims of that website, were not "acting nobly" or were "protecting Russians." They were trying to restore the tsar to power and were committing atrocities in the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied...sian_Civil_War
"The boys of capital, they ... chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-- without exception-- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement-- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in El Salvador-- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home."
Its as if the Wright brothers first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly." Killing Hope by William Blum
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
Last edited by Red Terror; 09-17-2016 at 11:38 AM.
There has never been a single, great revolution in history without civil war. --- Vladimir Lenin
There are decades when nothing happens and then there are weeks when decades happen. --- Vladimir Lenin
I don't get how you can move beyond religion any more than you can move beyond science. Religion is basically just rituals and philosophy that enrich the inner life of man. It's spiritual technology meant to take one to the core of his being the way that a rocket ship takes men to the moon. Saying we could move beyond it is absurd, like saying we'd move beyond music, literature, or art.
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!
^ I think so too.
Also Pompey brings up something I hadn't really considered in how many people who are outright disdainful of religion are also huge advocates for all sorts of spiritualism or other supernatural beliefs. I see this all the time with people around my age or a bit younger; if you asked a roomful of kids aged 19-24 at my school whether or not they were religious I think fewer than 1 in 5 would raise their hand, but you'd get a lot of chatter about Gnosticism and Deism and what they personally believe. I think it's a flattering self identity thing: "Religious people are dumb idiots who can't think for themselves but I've developed my own theology that centres around like... nature so I'm better than that...", is, I think, what they're going for.
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
Are there many students in your school who might take views similar to Red Terror's? I assume those views would be a form of atheism.
Sometimes people will present philosophic views claiming everything is deterministic, with some uniform randomness thrown in just in case. They get this from mathematical models of the universe. In those views, no one and nothing makes a "choice" and so no one and nothing can be conscious. Any subjectivity or consciousness is an epiphenomenon on top of unconscious matter. That implies that both religion and spiritualism are delusions.
That would be the kind of view that I could see claiming "religious people are dumb idiots who can't think for themselves".
Yes, I think Red Terror would fit in rather well lol
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
To be fair to Danik, I was only paraphrasing him. He may have said we have moved beyond religion or we have put religion behind us or maybe something else. My recollection is that he was speaking in progressive political terms. We hadn't known each other long and frankly I think he was breaking out the PC to see if I'd flinch. (About the same he censured me for using the word chastity in a post--apparently it's bad for women if you say chastity). I told him, probably too sharply (sorry Danik), that he didn't speak for "we" where religion or anything else was concerned. But I don't think there was anything more to the conversation than that. We weren't discussing theology.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-17-2016 at 06:52 PM.
"We" (Charles Wallace and I) have moved beyond religion. Ok. Maybe not. But "we" need not include you, Pompey.
Ecurb, from WiFi in the back country, so I may not respond. Plus, I hate typing on my phone.
Just then ecurb was eaten by the grizzly bear of silly equivocation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
