Hell discussion (split from Delta Lounge)

[Eliza Thomason]

Yes Delta Kin, but also a Christian Kin. I'm a true Christian here to help.
It's time you learnt something about your Bible.
Read the following:

In 1000AD the Kingdom of Germany was the largest, most central Kingdom of the Roman empire. The Romans were Pagans, and it was here in 1000AD Constantine declared Christianity the dominant religion of Rome. All Romans were to convert from Paganism to Christianity.

THe original hebrew word we know as hell - gehenna - was here translated by the Romans into 'hell'. Hell was a Pagan concept, and when the two belief systems merged, hell had to integrate with Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiGehenna
"English "Gehenna" represents the Greek Ge'enna (γέεννα) found in the New Testament, a phonetic transcription of Aramaic Gēhannā (ܓܗܢܐ), equivalent to the Hebrew Ge Hinnom, literally "Valley of Hinnom"." - wiki

The original hebrew word, Gehenna, is an actual physical place outside Jerusalem where dead bodies were thrown. People who'd died of all sorts of disease, for crimes, for worshipping Baal, and so on. They were thrown into this massive pit... This real, physical place. Every reference to hell within the new testament was actually referring to this pit, this real place outside of Jerusalem.

Here is just one reference from the original Hebrew New Testmanent where this word is used by Jesus. This is from Youngs Literal Translation - that's the original hebrew translated as best as possible into english.
Mathew 5:29 `But, if thy right eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast to gehenna.

There was also 'Sheol' used in the original hebrew, which was just a concept of neutral darkness ... death encompassing. Totally neutral, no concept of righteousness or judgment attached to it, no punishment or pain. Just blackness. Then that was also translated into hell by the romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

There was never any idea of hell in the original bible. This is why Jews today still don't believe in hell. It's only the Roman Catholic church and its offshoots that believe in hell.

You are not going to hell. No one is. It never existed.

Lordwilling I am not going to hell, but yes, it certainly does exist. Your argument is weak. You must have not studied Greek. Or the Bible, or Christianity, for that matter. We can discuss Christianity, the Bible, or Heaven and Hell and Purgatory, or Greek if you want, (My SLI-love will help me with the latter; he is schooled in it) but perhaps @hkkmr or @Kim or @silke could maybe move your post to the Religion section of the forum. Oh, there is no Religion section. Whats up with that? Well Philosophy, at least, would be closer to the topic than Delta Lounge. Hell is not a very lounge-y subject..

[rat1]

Lordwilling I am not going to hell, but yes, it certainly does exist. Your argument is weak. You must have not studied Greek. Or the Bible, or Christianity, for that matter. We can discuss Christianity, the Bible, or Heaven and Hell and Purgatory, or Greek if you want, (My SLI-love will help me with the latter; he is schooled in it) but

Passages taken directly from the original hebrew are 'weak evidence'; and we should instead look to the Greek translations of the original Hebrew.... ?
I'm... I don't even know how that.... ??
Whatever. Believe what you want to believe.
I'm dedicating this song to your son, however:

....Historical facts are 'weak evidence'.
Why was I born with a mind?
Oh yeah... I WELCOME your SLI-love's input with OPEN arms.

perhaps @...... could maybe move your post to the Religion section of the forum. Oh, there is no Religion section. Whats up with that? Well Philosophy, at least, would be closer to the topic than Delta Lounge. Hell is not a very lounge-y subject..

Yeah you prefer to keep lounging, don't you?
I've got another song for you!
... I promise this one is good lounging music. Some of the best lounging music.

[Eliza Thomason]

rat1, leave my son out of this. I don't want anything by Marilyn Manson dedicated to him. He is already dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ and I renew that dedication under the Mantle of Our Blessed Mother every week. You know, the one who has crushed the serpent under her foot. So he is good.

Is Manson one of your hero's? Does he subscribe to your brand of "Christianity"?

You think you know the Bible but believe me its nothing special what you are doing. Legion are those who twist Bible verses for their own purposes, be they evil or perverted. They have always been around, and will be around to the end, but in the very end they lose. I am on the side of truth and light and I want nothing else.

I read some of what you wrote in DJ's closed thread and I am not impressed. Some of your views are repulsive. I doubt we have enough common ground to carry on any kind of a discussion.

[anndelise]

Yes Delta Kin, but also a Christian Kin. I'm a true Christian here to help.
It's time you learnt something about your Bible.
Read the following:

In 1000AD the Kingdom of Germany was the largest, most central Kingdom of the Roman empire. The Romans were Pagans, and it was here in 1000AD Constantine declared Christianity the dominant religion of Rome. All Romans were to convert from Paganism to Christianity.

THe original hebrew word we know as hell - gehenna - was here translated by the Romans into 'hell'. Hell was a Pagan concept, and when the two belief systems merged, hell had to integrate with Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiGehenna
"English "Gehenna" represents the Greek Ge'enna (γέεννα) found in the New Testament, a phonetic transcription of Aramaic Gēhannā (ܓܗܢܐ), equivalent to the Hebrew Ge Hinnom, literally "Valley of Hinnom"." - wiki

The original hebrew word, Gehenna, is an actual physical place outside Jerusalem where dead bodies were thrown. People who'd died of all sorts of disease, for crimes, for worshipping Baal, and so on. They were thrown into this massive pit... This real, physical place. Every reference to hell within the new testament was actually referring to this pit, this real place outside of Jerusalem.

Here is just one reference from the original Hebrew New Testmanent where this word is used by Jesus. This is from Youngs Literal Translation - that's the original hebrew translated as best as possible into english.
Mathew 5:29 `But, if thy right eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast to gehenna.

There was also 'Sheol' used in the original hebrew, which was just a concept of neutral darkness ... death encompassing. Totally neutral, no concept of righteousness or judgment attached to it, no punishment or pain. Just blackness. Then that was also translated into hell by the romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

There was never any idea of hell in the original bible. This is why Jews today still don't believe in hell. It's only the Roman Catholic church and its offshoots that believe in hell.

You are not going to hell. No one is. It never existed.

This is interesting reading, rat1.
My brother who has studied histories and cultures related to the bible and some other religions had often brought up something about "hell" being a reference to a hill (i thought he said hill) where executions occured, bodies were dumped, and sometimes where the sick and dying were dumped. I wish I could remember his exact words, cuz I'm going by memories triggered by feelings of revulsion so may have some of the details different from what he said. But I think he had said the hill was named Sheol. (Mind, he does sometimes confuse facts together, and I'm wondering if that's what he did here.) So it's nice to see a clearer picture of what he was referring to. Thank you.

[Aylen]

http://www.cpyu.org/Page.aspx?id=80328

"Jon Wiederhorn of MTV.com, in June 2003, referred too Marilyn Manson as "the only true artist today".

What made him so popular is that he exposed religious hypocrisy, starting with his own family. The man lived his own personal hell.

 

Marilyn Manson was born in Canton, Ohio. He is the only son of Barbara Warner (maiden name Wyer) and Hugh Warner.[4] Manson is of German and Polish descent on his father's side,[5] and is a fourth cousin twice removed of conservative commentator Pat Buchanan.[4][6] In his autobiography The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, he detailed his grandfather's sexual fetishes, including bestiality and sadomasochism. As a child, he attended his mother's Episcopal church, though his father was a Catholic.[7][8] Warner attended Heritage Christian School from first grade to tenth grade. He later transferred to GlenOak High School[9] and graduated from there in 1987. After relocating with his parents, he became a student at Broward Community College in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 1990. He was working towards a degree in journalism and gaining experience in the field by writing articles for a music magazine, 25th Parallel. He soon met several of the musicians to whom his own band were later compared, including My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, The Perfect, and Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails.

[rat1]

rat1, leave my son out of this. I don't want anything by Marilyn Manson dedicated to him. He is already dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ and I renew that dedication under the Mantle of Our Blessed Mother every week.

Christian indoctrination of children is child abuse.

You know, the one who has crushed the serpent under her foot. So he is good.

Such hatred for snakes...
Remember when I drew up your sons birth chart? Your sons birth moon was in Rohini. Right where mine is.
The symbol of Rohini is the Cobra. Your son .... the cobra.
You think I'm a snake, eliza? Do I seem snakelike? (say yes)

You think you know the Bible but believe me its nothing special what you are doing. Legion are those who twist Bible verses for their own purposes, be they evil or perverted. They have always been around, and will be around to the end, but in the very end they lose. I am on the side of truth and light and I want nothing else.

I read some of what you wrote in DJ's closed thread and I am not impressed. Some of your views are repulsive. I doubt we have enough common ground to carry on any kind of a discussion.

It amuses me you don't even attempt to MAKE a logical response.

Is Manson one of your hero's? Does he subscribe to your brand of "Christianity"?

I like Manson. He's got some great music, and his lyrics cut to the core sometimes. Great artist.

[Beautiful sky]

Christian indoctrination of children is ]

people indoctrinate children not using christianity specifically...are those also abuse? when we teach them modern laws and make them abide by them isn't this also a form of indoctrinating?

[ashlesha]

[Beautiful sky]

if it wasn't for religions and laws that accompanied them people would be far far crueler than they are now. even the spirtual warmth of the philosophy of the nativeamericans in their conscious realization or reflection on their way of life and hunting rituals shows consideration, consciousness. how people have chosen to interpret and evolve religious words to suit their national or political agenda isn't something that can be blamed on the philosophy of that religion

this is all a part of our evolutionary process. as a people we'vecome a long way...we've observed the god in the sky and have come to astrology and evolved in thought to making a standardized callendar and from that astrology and back down to asking where we really come from and then facing challenging questions

why hate? people in religious societies discovered and enriched sciences. found bacteria from which we have peniccilin. did we forget this?

[Aylen]

why hate?

Excellent question. Unfortunately many religions teach people (children) to "hate" and disguise it as righteousness. It's insidious. I have explored many religions, including being "born again". For me the Tao is the way, no pun intended. The most loving thing I can do for a child is encourage them to think for themselves so they can decide their own truth. That is how I was taught. I don't hate anyone and I can say that with a clear conscious.

Hatred, resentment, etc... would only harm me in the long run, because anybody I could possibly hate or resent is going to go on living their lives regardless...

"Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die."

[Creepy-male]

Oh, I honestly can't wait to go to hell when I die -- it sounds like a swell old time. All the things Christians hate in one place: sex, booze, drugs, violence without the fear of death, fire, and every kind of pagan-try imaginable. Yippeee!!!!!!!!!


edit: actually nix the violence part -- that seems to be apart of the faith if history doth attest...


Also on Manson -- as a performance artist he's great -- as a musician he's garbage.

[rat1]

people indoctrinate children not using christianity specifically...are those also abuse? when we teach them modern laws and make them abide by them isn't this also a form of indoctrinating?

Learning to follow traffic laws is not psychologically damaging like being held hostage eternally by a sadistic, sexually repressive, all watching force of obedience and damnation. On the most minor level, yes, I consider civilization itself undesirable. But I also consider civilizations development to be a creation of religious establishments. The first civilization, for instance, systemized the zodiac coordinating the masses harvesting functions. And along with it were a whole host of religious dogmas attached to the signs. For example tHe bull was worshipped as a deity, and was attached to Taurus... The Sun was in Tuarus during harvest, and people used bulls to plow during harvests (6K years ago).

So yes, traffic laws are a minor violation of an individuals freedom... but a byproduct of religion, and not comparable in scale to religious indoctrination.

One is an annoyance and the other is child abuse.

Next time you quote me, don't cut it off halfway through, either.

[rat1]

if it wasn't for religions and laws that accompanied them people would be far far crueler than they are now. even the spirtual warmth of the philosophy of the nativeamericans in their conscious realization or reflection on their way of life and hunting rituals shows consideration, consciousness. how people have chosen to interpret and evolve religious words to suit their national or political agenda isn't something that can be blamed on the philosophy of that religion

I don't advocate the abolishment of religion. I prefer natural religion; a religion connected to nature, much like those of the indians. A spiritual attunement with nature. This is far more compassionate and real than any of the worlds modern dominant religions (with the exception of some hindu sects). The moment a religious belief becomes dogma (it happens through presession) it's become maladaptive and... ultimately cancerous. Dogmatic religion departs from nature and civilization expands...

The best examples of natural religion are in tribal people. The egyptian religion is often cited as an exception... a highly civilized society which managed to remain in balance for 3000 years, connected to nature; they never expanded their civilization beyond its limits... all their practices were sustainable, and they respected animals as much as they did human beings. Then again, there are geographical reasons for that. They were surrounded by deserts. ...I still love their religion.

Yawn... but cancer is a natural occurrence, too.

this is all a part of our evolutionary process. as a people we'vecome a long way...we've observed the god in the sky and have come to astrology and evolved in thought to making a standardized callendar and from that astrology and back down to asking where we really come from and then facing challenging questions

why hate? people in religious societies discovered and enriched sciences. found bacteria from which we have peniccilin. did we forget this?

You cannot separate scientific advancement from society as a whole. Science is a byproduct of modern society which has only destroyed the biosphere. Disease serves an important function of controlling population numbers; again preventing pollution buildup. (And an evolutionary function). When you eliminate that function, the population booms and pollution begins building. Right now, the Meditteranean sea... 90% of the fish are extinct. In the Atlantic ocean it's something like 40%. For you science and medicine may be a good thing. For the future generations, they'll be picking up the shit we've left behind. So no, this modern expansion isn't a good thing. It's cancerous.

[Creepy-male]

Science is a byproduct of modern society which has only destroyed the biosphere. Disease serves an important function of controlling population numbers; again preventing pollution buildup. When you eliminate that function, the population booms and the world becomes diseased. Right now, the Meditteranean sea, 90% of the fish are extinct. In the Atlantic ocean it's something like 40%. For you science and medicine may be a good thing. For the future generations, they'll be picking up the shit we've left behind. So no, this modern expansion isn't a good thing. It's cancerous.

I agree with your general sentiment concerning the particularly maladaptive view of Nature that Christianity and modern society takes, however your approach to understanding what science is and what it could possibly become is very much along the lines of a New Age layman in my opinion. Some sort of romanticized return to the indigenous traditions is impossible and merely a fantasy for the baby boomer, white middle class. What you critique is a view of Nature that is hostile, dominating, and utilitarian in its approach. Science may be informed by certain ways of thinking that are complicit with these views a la the philosophical underpinnings of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Newton et al -- but that doesn't mean science itself is not adaptable ideologically to the particularly dismal conditions that you've described. One only need to read writers like Goethe, John Muir, Thoreau and so on to find many different scientifically informed approaches to the problem.

[rat1]

I see ultimately no need for scientific progress. Natural knowledge is all that's required. Perhaps some scientists; 'anti-scientists' I'd like to call them, could argue for the dissolution of society from a scientific foundation. That is where science confronts questions of an unknowable nature; it morphs into a search for ones inner spirituality, and with that social dissolution. This 'scientific' philosophical realization then ceases to be science; these inquiries stretch beyond the boundaries of science.
At least I take it we agree there is no need for scientific progress or civilized progress?
The only value I see in science is that, through perfecting it, we may in the end learn how fruitless an effort it was to begin with, and maybe gain some spiritual knowledge from the experience.

[Creepy-male]

I see ultimately no need for scientific progress. Natural knowledge is all that's required. Perhaps some scientists; 'anti-scientists' I'd like to call them, could argue for the dissolution of society from a scientific foundation. That is where science confronts questions of an unknowable nature; it morphs into a search for ones inner spirituality, and with that social dissolution. This 'scientific' philosophical realization then ceases to be science; these inquiries stretch beyond the boundaries of science.
At least I take it we agree there is no need for scientific progress or civilized progress?
The only value I see i science is that, through perfecting it, we may in the end learn how fruitless an effort it was to begin with.

Like a good IEI it's as though they are speaking to themselves and no one else.

Science is a tool. Humans have been using tools in various forms for the past few hundred thousand years according, ironically, to scientists. Rationality is a tool. The problem is that we've confused the tool with the way things are. That doesn't mean that we get rid of the tool -- we just stop using it incorrectly. What you're critiquing is the assumption made by scientists that the "knowledge" that they refer to coheres to the world "as it is"-- when in fact it only coheres to the particular worldview of science itself that relies upon the continued accumulation of facts and data -- progress as you call it. The danger as you and I both agree upon -- is where they confuse this particular worldview as being the sole criterion or absolute truth about the way the world actually is and not something that is merely instrumental and in many cases detrimental -- nuclear weapons, excessive use of anti-biotics, etc. However, I would argue that this natural knowledge you speak of -- as though it were simply there after lifting the veil of modernity -- is a romantic illusion -- a product of modernity. There is no "natural" knowledge extracted from cultural context. The way in which humans perceive the world is intricately and irremovably tied with culture. If the veil were somehow lifted -- we would perceive the world as it is: a totally meaningless chaos -- completely unlivable. I agree with your diagnosis -- but I see a different prescription. I argue instead for multiple healthier interpretations, healthier, natural ways of living, healthier natural religions, healthier natural sciences, than the ones we've been saddled with for the past millennia. In other words a use of our natural creativity. Something along those lines.

[Olduvai]

I see ultimately no need for scientific progress. Natural knowledge is all that's required. Perhaps some scientists; 'anti-scientists' I'd like to call them, could argue for the dissolution of society from a scientific foundation. That is where science confronts questions of an unknowable nature; it morphs into a search for ones inner spirituality, and with that social dissolution. This 'scientific' philosophical realization then ceases to be science; these inquiries stretch beyond the boundaries of science.
At least I take it we agree there is no need for scientific progress or civilized progress?
The only value I see in science is that, through perfecting it, we may in the end learn how fruitless an effort it was to begin with, and maybe gain some spiritual knowledge from the experience.

Isn't "science" really just a method for obtaining "natural knowledge"? By the way, what is "natural knowledge"? Better yet, what is "unnatural knowledge"? The universe contains every possibility; therefore anything we could possibly know is "of the universe" and therefore "natural".

By "natural knowledge", do you mean "knowledge gained through mere observation"? If so, then you display a strange bias toward your "explicit" ego function; quit neglecting your "implicit" ego function!

[Aylen]

If the veil were somehow lifted -- we would perceive the world as it is: a totally meaningless chaos -- completely unlivable.

The veils are lifting and what I see is a a perfect manifestation of "spirit" being creative in a myriad of ways.. a reflection of consciousness exploring itself.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy". - Hamlet

[Creepy-male]

The veils are lifting and what I see is a a perfect manifestation of "spirit" being creative in a myriad of ways.. a reflection of consciousness exploring itself.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy". - Hamlet

Ah, an act of creativity -- how wonderful! You make my point, however you miss much about what I am saying -- it could be type related.

edit: to clarify so as not to sound too arrogant as I appear you make my point by acting as the creative side to my destructive side...Ni speak, very hush hush.

[rat1]

Isn't "science" really just a method for obtaining "natural knowledge"? By the way, what is "natural knowledge"? Better yet, what is "unnatural knowledge"? The universe contains every possibility; therefore anything we could possibly know is "of the universe" and therefore "natural".

By "natural knowledge", do you mean "knowledge gained through mere observation"? If so, then you display a strange bias toward your "explicit" ego function; quit neglecting your "implicit" ego function!

Yes, natural knowledge IS gained through mere observation, but on a deeper level it's already known. Nothing is really gained besides a new observational standpoint.. the knowledge is inherent.

Natural knowledge is holsitic, undivided, and instinctual. Science categorical, maximally divided, and attempting to reconstruct nature. Yeah, they are both valid. I fall prey to bias, but civilization ... and cancer.. IS a product of nature. And in my good mood state, I don't hate science.
Unnatural knowledge is scientific. In the same way that civilization is unnatural, and cancerous isn't healthy. Lungs and I discussed this yesterday. I hope you saw that discussion so I don't have to repeat it.

THere is implicit intelligence in nature. There is a 'scientific' resemblance in the systemization of hunter gatherer societies... I don't have a problem with the indians, or their way of organizing daily life. Organization itself is not my problem. My only concern is society remain connected with nature. Connected with the animals. Symbiosis is my concern.

[rat1]

I agree with your general sentiment concerning the particularly maladaptive view of Nature that Christianity and modern society takes, however your approach to understanding what science is and what it could possibly become is very much along the lines of a New Age layman in my opinion. Some sort of romanticized return to the indigenous traditions is impossible and merely a fantasy for the baby boomer, white middle class. What you critique is a view of Nature that is hostile, dominating, and utilitarian in its approach. Science may be informed by certain ways of thinking that are complicit with these views a la the philosophical underpinnings of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Newton et al -- but that doesn't mean science itself is not adaptable ideologically to the particularly dismal conditions that you've described. One only need to read writers like Goethe, John Muir, Thoreau and so on to find many different scientifically informed approaches to the problem.

Like a good IEI it's as though they are speaking to themselves and no one else.

EDIT: ALright I reread your post closely and I misunderstood you.
I think such a correspondence of science and nature working together will only lead to failure because it puts at odds the brain impulses and animal drives. Humans cannot be mechanized. As we have to exercise our brains over our bodies to to fulfill social ideals, the instincts are repressed. Our heads are separated from our bodies, and we dissociate from the body. Deviance builds up within the psyche... desires become rampant. THen there are those who are socially compliant, but feel an emptiness at their core. THey are lonely, they feel like machines, they feel glossed over... they don't feel alive. They don't feel human. These people are without direction, they feel like they are a functionary of the machine, flitting around from one place to the next, controlled completely by externals. They have no self.
The brain and body are separated, the whole animal is degraded and eventually goes mad.

Science is a tool. Humans have been using tools in various forms for the past few hundred thousand years according, ironically, to scientists. Rationality is a tool. The problem is that we've confused the tool with the way things are. That doesn't mean that we get rid of the tool -- we just stop using it incorrectly. What you're critiquing is the assumption made by scientists that the "knowledge" that they refer to coheres to the world "as it is"-- when in fact it only coheres to the particular worldview of science itself that relies upon the continued accumulation of facts and data -- progress as you call it. The danger as you and I both agree upon -- is where they confuse this particular worldview as being the sole criterion or absolute truth about the way the world actually is and not something that is merely instrumental and in many cases detrimental -- nuclear weapons, excessive use of anti-biotics, etc. However, I would argue that this natural knowledge you speak of -- as though it were simply there after lifting the veil of modernity -- is a romantic illusion -- a product of modernity. There is no "natural" knowledge extracted from cultural context. The way in which humans perceive the world is intricately and irremovably tied with culture. If the veil were somehow lifted -- we would perceive the world as it is: a totally meaningless chaos -- completely unlivable. I agree with your diagnosis -- but I see a different prescription. I argue instead for multiple healthier interpretations, healthier, natural ways of living, healthier natural religions, healthier natural sciences, than the ones we've been saddled with for the past millennia. In other words a use of our natural creativity. Something along those lines.

Will respond later. Busy atm.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah well maybe I don't feel like wikiing your elitist, obscure references, and just gloss over a general theme to your response. Make your writing clear and easy to digest for the average reader. Dont make me do your work for you. Don't categorize me, either.

My writing is clear, logical and to the point. However arrogant and elitist I may sound -- my sources are sound. Apologies for the categorization. Make no mistake -- I'm not disagreeing with you, simply attempting to provide the negative to your positive. Get my drift?

: ALright I reread your post closely and I misunderstood you.
I think such a correspondence of science and nature working together will only lead to failure because it puts at odds the brain impulses and animal drives. Humans cannot be mechanized. As we have to exercise our brains over our bodies to to fulfill social ideals, the instincts are repressed. Our heads are separated from our bodies, and we dissociate from the body. Deviance builds up within the psyche... desires become rampant. THen there are those who are socially compliant, but feel an emptiness at their core. THey are lonely, they feel like machines, they feel glossed over... they don't feel alive. They don't feel human. These people are without direction, they feel like they are a functionary of the machine, flitting around from one place to the next, controlled completely by externals. They have no self.
The brain and body are separated, the whole animal is degraded and eventually goes mad.

For one, not all science is mechanistic. Newtonian physics, yes...many branches are quantitatively based. However, these are merely paradigms of thought -- there are many different ways of interpreting the world. The mechanistic interpretation is but one and it certainly isn't absolutely binded together with science. Ecology is one field that gravitates toward thinking of ecosystems as a whole.

I think it best not to think of religions and laws and codes and such simply as methods of repression...Think of them in terms of cultivation. In many cases these systems cultivate humans a certain way. As cultivating forces there is an allocation of inner drives toward a particular ideal or what have you. In some cases, unhealthily in many respects, in others less so. But even in the unhealthy ones, like Christianity, there is always the other side too. Christian love, compassion for the poor, humility are all ideals unique to that tradition -- at least in the western world. It isn't black and white. I argue that a human stripped of his cultivation would most likely be something totally disorganized and chaotic. The reason why Aylen made my point up above is to say that the concepts she uses to articulate and organize her inner drives in my opinion are culturally conditioned and no more. They are a product of her creativity -- an organization of the needs of her inner drives. Now that isn't to say that what she believes isn't more natural than if she were a dogmatic Christian or rigid scientist. No, her beliefs work for her to allow her to be more natural -- but I argue that that naturalness is an asymptotic (sorry, elitism) or approximate naturalness. Not the way nature actually is -- but merely an interpretation among an infinite number of interpretations. I argue that this act of interpreting -- of cultivating -- is the most natural human drive possible.

[rat1]

Just reread my EDIT.

[Aylen]

Ah, an act of creativity -- how wonderful! You make my point, however you miss much about what I am saying -- it could be type related.

edit: to clarify so as not to sound too arrogant as I appear you make my point by acting as the creative side to my destructive side...Ni speak, very hush hush.

No, I'm not missing anything, just choosing to express myself creatively and not to comment on things that don't excite me.

[Creepy-male]

No, I'm not missing anything, just choosing to express myself creatively and not to comment on things that don't excite me.

Sex, music, hellfire, ANNAAARRRCCCCHHHYYYYYYY


...comment?

[Creepy-male]

Just reread my EDIT.

I guess it's this:

I see you rejecting science and agree with you about its unhealthiness but disagree that we should reject it outright. I also disagree with how you see the "ultimate" reality -- I see an eternal meaningless, dionysian chaos. I see science as a work of art in the deepest spiritual sense that can be altered through the potency of human creativity -- right now it's a shitty work of art that's dragging us down -- but it could be the fucking sistine chapel...

Anyway, thanks for entertaining my rant -- sorry for elitist prickish arrogance.

[rat1]

For one, not all science is mechanistic. Newtonian physics, yes...many branches are quantitatively based. However, these are merely paradigms of thought -- there are many different ways of interpreting the world. The mechanistic interpretation is but one and it certainly isn't absolutely binded together with science. Ecology is one field that gravitates toward thinking of ecosystems as a whole.

Even when science is viewed holisticially it still systemizes the students consciousness; divides it. THe division between mind and body remains. Einstein spent the majority of his life in out of body experiences.

I think it best not to think of religions and laws and codes and such simply as methods of repression...Think of them in terms of cultivation. In many cases these systems cultivate humans a certain way. As cultivating forces there is an allocation of inner drives toward a particular ideal or what have you. In some cases, unhealthily in many respects, in others less so. But even in the unhealthy ones, like Christianity, there is always the other side too. Christian love, compassion for the poor, humility are all ideals unique to that tradition -- at least in the western world. It isn't black and white. I argue that a human stripped of his cultivation would most likely be something totally disorganized and chaotic. The reason why Aylen made my point up above is to say that the concepts she uses to articulate and organize her inner drives in my opinion are culturally conditioned and no more. They are a product of her creativity -- an organization of the needs of her inner drives. Now that isn't to say that what she believes isn't more natural than if she were a dogmatic Christian or rigid scientist. No, her beliefs work for her to allow her to be more natural -- but I argue that that naturalness is an asymptotic (sorry, elitism) or approximate naturalness. Not the way nature actually is -- merely an interpretation among an infinite number of interpretations. I argue that this act of interpreting is the most natural human drive possible.

Creation leads to dissolution. Social cultivation leads to social dissolution. When the animal drive is socially channeled, free expression is limited. Desire inevitably builds up to break out these limitations. THe civilization then dissolves. In the meantime the biosphere has been neglected and destroyed.
I don't aim to strip humanity of their creativity; of cultivation. My preference is that we cultivate the earth, not computer screens and media presentations. Balance the herds... cultivate the plants. Etc. Live in harmony with eachother, like the hunter gatherers did. Get to really know eachother. Not through screens. What is more creative and inspiring than real human interaction, stripped of all the superficialities of cultural identity?
I don't advocate chaos, either. Nature is extremely organized. Spring and summer are cyclical... predator and prey are balanced. Human beings may tend to the balance (as the inians did)
This IS our most natural drive. Again, my point is not to eliminate this drive, but to recalibrate it with the earth.
You may think of cancer as a kind of cultivation - and it is. But my point is this is not valuable; this is not preferential. This is not... the healthy foundation of reality. As we build society, life dwindles...
Mediterranean... 90% fish dead.

[Creepy-male]

Even when science is not viewed holisticially it still systemizes the students consciousness; divides it. THe division between mind and body remains. Einstein spent the majority of his life in out of body experiences.


Creation leads to dissolution. Social cultivation leads to social dissolution. When the animal drive is socially channeled, free expression is limited. Desire inevitably builds up to break out these limitations. THe civilization then dissolves. In the meantime the biosphere has been neglected and destroyed.
I don't aim to strip humanity of their creativity; of cultivation. My preference is that we cultivate the earth, not computer screens and media presentations. Balance the herds... cultivate the plants. Etc. Live in harmony with eachother, like the hunter gatherers did. Get to really know eachother. Not through screens. What is more creative and inspiring than real human interaction, stripped of all the superficialities of cultural identity?
Spring and summer are natural cycles of creation and destruction. Nature is very organized.
And this IS our most natural drive. Again, my point is not to eliminate this drive, but to recalibrate it with the earth.
You make think of cancer as a kind of cultivation - and it is. But my point is this is not valuable; this is not preferential. This is not... the healthy foundation of reality. As we build society, life dwindles...
Mediterranean... 90% fish dead.

Cultivation renews itself cyclically unlike dogma.

Exactly, creation and destruction are the very fabric of our existence. Free expression is heightened if and only if restraints are broken -- restraints must be there in the first place -- would you call Beethoven limited by the restraints of classical musical notation? If it weren't for the cultivation of his genius through the rigorous demands of his art, then we would never have his beauty.

Agreement on the computer screens stuff, totally.

Why not war in nature? A tension between opposites creates harmony.

"What is more creative and inspiring than real human interaction, stripped of all the superficialities of cultural identity?" -- That's how cultural identity changes, it doesn't destroy itself permanently or it already would have.

If you can see the cancer in your healthiness and the healthiness in your cancer then you've seen nature.

All things arise and pass away.

[Aylen]

+ = Natural



I'm =

I look forward to each new day...

I don't know what Ni is but it sounds Ni(ce)

[Creepy-male]

matter is neither created nor destroyed.
all humans are an existent within existence
all matter is connected and each living thing as a portrait of the uuunNNIIIVERSE <3 (as it is presently)
so.. that's why you'll never see anything that looks like it came from the completely wrong time. because the universe won't allow it. it's all like, "nah, i'm over that phase. time to move on"
until one day when time travel is created.
so like, when you dies, it's cause you're out of style in the universe's opinion.
so we don't really NEED science cause so long as you IN, you ain't gonna die. hear me

but i still don't wanna live in a hut or anything.

In my view, matter doesn't exist, only a superfluity of forces, matter is merely a conceptual imposition humans project upon the world in order to feel a semblance of constancy -- out of necessity so that they can face up to the eternal flux.

Neither do I unless it's a treehouse:

[rat1]

Cultivation renews itself cyclically unlike dogma.

Exactly, creation and destruction are the very fabric of our existence. Free expression is heightened if and only if restraints are broken -- restraints must be there in the first place -- would you call Beethoven limited by the restraints of classical musical notation? If it weren't for the cultivation of his genius through the rigorous demands of his art, then we would never have his beauty.

Agreement on the computer screens stuff, totally.

Why not war in nature? A tension between opposites creates harmony.

"What is more creative and inspiring than real human interaction, stripped of all the superficialities of cultural identity?" -- That's how cultural identity changes, it doesn't destroy itself permanently or it already would have.

If you can see the cancer in your healthiness and the healthiness in your cancer then you've seen nature.

All things arise and pass away.

It comes down to... we all have biases, and our own values.
I understand this I just personally value a healthy body, and sustainable practices, a healthy earth; to a cancerous body, and unsustainable pollution of the earth. Like you see in the Niger River Valley, for instance.
I like to take care of myself.
But t hen I see some people who are 400 pound blobs and they can barely get out of their chair. And that's naturally emerged, and they're part of reality, too.
Just not my preference. ANd really I'd refer they died off sooner than later.
Our society needs a social collapse and .... bacterial die off.
Of course i see it coming and make all plans to avoid it myself.
These are personal values of mine. I don't assert them to have .. universal meaning. Because nothing does. Universalize a statement and nothing is either true or distinguishable. But what is really preferred? Do you want cancer? What is really good?
I sympathize with the indians. I would have fought for them. Killed some colonial fuckers in droves. I'm so sneaky... I'd gotten at least 30 of them. I'd made sure of it.
Nice discussion. Now time for me to sleep, goodnight.

[Creepy-male]

It comes down to... we all have biases, and our own values.
I understand this I just personally value a healthy body, and sustainable practices, a healthy earth; to a cancerous body, and unsustainable pollution of the earth. Like you see in the Niger River Valley, for instance.
I like to take care of myself.
But t hen I see some people who are 400 pound blobs and they can barely get out of their chair. And that's naturally emerged, and they're part of reality, too.
Just not my preference. ANd really I'd refer they died off sooner than later.
Our society needs a social collapse and .... bacterial die off.
Of course i see it coming and make all plans to avoid it myself.
These are personal values of mine. I don't assert them to have .. universal meaning. Because nothing does. Universalize a statement and nothing is either true or distinguishable. But what is really preferred? Do you want cancer? What is really good?
I sympathize with the indians. I would have fought for them. Killed some colonial fuckers in droves. I'm so sneaky... I'd gotten at least 30 of them. I'd made sure of it.
Nice discussion. Now time for me to sleep, goodnight.

Well I take the statement as an understanding of the contraries inherent to all things -- that everything that lives dies and everything that dies will in some way compose something else. At least in the moment I see "good" as that which sparks the deepest flame within from the ashes without and that which extinguishes the blaze as well. So experimenting in different ways finding that helps. At least turning this back to evil, hellish things -- even in what seems most dark in some way holds the spark of light and that which is most light will one day dim.

Good convo -- thoughts on my type would be welcome if you have opinions sometime. peace.

[Aquagraph]

You think you know the Bible but believe me its nothing special what you are doing. Legion are those who twist Bible verses for their own purposes, be they evil or perverted. They have always been around, and will be around to the end, but in the very end they lose. I am on the side of truth and light and I want nothing else.

And I'm looking at you, waiting for you and your SO to tell me that the hell you speak of is something else than a twisted pseudo-Christian horror story not based in the Bible.

Here are some references of hell in the Bible using the Hebrew words:

Here the pious Jacob is expected to go to hell:

"And all his sons and all his daughters kept trying to comfort him, but he kept refusing to take comfort, saying: “I will go down into the SHEOL mourning my son!” And his father continued weeping for him." - Genesis 37:35

Here the pious Job is expected to go hell:

"O that in the SHEOL you would conceal me, That you would hide me until your anger passes by,
That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!"

"For the one who has died has been acquitted/release/pardoned from his sin." -Romans 6:7

Hell is supposed to be a punishment in your views but death is an acquittal?

"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23

So death is the punishment. Not hell.

"In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken.
For dust you are and to dust you will return." - Genesis 3:19

A grave sounds more closer to this than a fiery pit.

"His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish" -Psalms 146:4

And the dead are also unconscious.

God who his full of mercy and compassion shouldn't be sending people to eternal fires in the first place.

[Pookie]

You think you know the Bible but believe me its nothing special what you are doing. Legion are those who twist Bible verses for their own purposes, be they evil or perverted. They have always been around, and will be around to the end, but in the very end they lose. I am on the side of truth and light and I want nothing else.

The bible was hand-written for hundreds of years in a language where a smudge mark on the word sin could turn the word into sex. There'es more minor differences between bibles then there are words in the bible. Are all those people who wrote the script and mass-produced it evil or perverted? And even more pertinent, How do you know your side, "the side of truth", isn't watered down by hundred of years of minor changes/ mistranslation of language/ legion here and there?

[Reficulris]

Not going in here, although i'm sorely tempted (oh damn, I just did go in here, didn't I?)

I've hated religious people (not the quiet ones, but the ones that like @Maritsa and @elisa thompson make a lot of noice about it) my entire life. No-one was ever cruel to me safe religious people. No one were so blinded by dogma as relgious people. No one ever seemed so self deluded as relgious people. I fought it, I fought them, I lost... not due to lack of good arguments or intelligence but due to the fact that you can't win a fight with a believer. It's a brand of madness.

I've found hope in the fact that in Holland at least christianity is dying. Most of the churches are empty, only a few old people go in at sunday, and in a few years those will be gone.
I've found hope in the fact that there are legions of nice, open minded people that just ignore those crazy witch-burners and holier than thou victims
I've found hope in the fact that there are eloquent speakers that speak up against that emperial monster called "roman church" http://youtu.be/6L1xvdZMC10

I believe the war against dogma can be won, but it will be won by artrition and by ignoring the religious idiots, not by argumenting against them or fighting them. It's the nature of dogma to be strong in opposition.

I realise the above is all inspired by spite. It's not about hell (although a world full of believers would be hell to me). But it's a warning to Rat1 and the others, you can't win, don't try, its not worth the energy. Believers will believe despite whatever you say. Look at worlds history, humans don't change due to rational argument, they change because some people die and others don't. Gods will Let them believe in their hocus pocus and hope they don't get too many children.

[rat1]

REficulris... I liked your post. But the last part, where you say you can't win. Against people like Eliza, this is true. But for all the rest listening; some christians who are lukewarm, some may be questioning their faith... knowing evidence like what I posted @eliza can be liberating. Knowing hell NEVER existed in the original hebrew... that's liberating. Final threads of guilt and delusion being broken. So I don't see this discussion as meaningless, even when up against.... the broken, lobotomized ones like Eliza or Abby.

"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23

So death is the punishment. Not hell.

This passage you quoted stood out to me the most.
I find the Christian attitude toward death especially interesting. Of course death is everywhere in nature.
But for a Christian, death is viewed as a punishment... a damnation. In other cultures, like in south american, native american, indian cultures... death is viewed as a liberation. A return to bliss.
How one looks upon death is a reflection life lived. Some die content... others in misery.
A religions view on death is very telling.
For a Christian, death is the ULTIMATE damnation. Why is that? What guilt drives this fear of death; of punishment and damnation?
At the most unconscious level, Christianity is driven by child abuse. This is why the highest levels of the Roman Catholic church are permeated with child molesters.

The original Christians were horrified of death...
The Hebrew sect that wrote the New Testament, starting in ~70AD, began mummifying themselves. They believed when they died, their mummified corpses would be preserved and resurrected with the return of Christ; an event they expected to happen shortly.
They actually removed their intestines and hung them on hooks symbolizing liberation from the sins of the body (sin was a drive originating in the intestines and genitals).
Of course that never panned out.

[Absurd]

Ahhh, so this is where I can re-attach myself to crazie rat again, taking into account I have been banned from delta lounge when fighting wild, rabid Ni/Se animals.

[Reficulris]

REficulris... I liked your post. But the last part, where you say you can't win. Against people like Eliza, this is true. But for all the rest listening; some christians who are lukewarm, some may be questioning their faith... knowing evidence like what I posted @eliza can be liberating. Knowing hell NEVER existed in the original hebrew... that's liberating. Final threads of guilt and delusion being broken. So I don't see this discussion as meaningless, even when up against.... the broken, lobotomized ones like Eliza or Abby.

True, it just became too tiring for me I guess. That said, it's not meaningless, but it's not...effective or efficient. I don't usually care about efficiency but I decided It wasn't worth the extreme effort it took me to fight.
If/when people are doubting, or searching, or at least open to different ideas i think it's great to talk with them, even to learn from them, share perspectives. It's when faced with the mental doorslam of dogma that I retreat (or angryly lash out as I did in my previous post) and give up.

And yes, knowing can liberate from religion and or guilt. That alone might be worth it indeed.

[Absurd]

[Absurd]

Oh yes, chrisieboy, I remember you, too.