Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes against

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:35 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:[
But caring about others is caring about yourself.
In a no self universe, why would caring for others boil down to care for oneself. Wouldn't it simply be caring?

I could extrapolate and say that's what alan says because he says "there is no dancer; just the dancing." And he criticizes the english language for dividing nouns and verbs which is, apparently, different from the chinese language. Evidently, dancing is a thing rather than what you do. I don't know chinese, so I'll have to take his word for it, but it makes sense considering the opposite points of view of west and east.

But removing the self does not disturb my argument that no selfless acts exists because if there is only the love and no lover or loveee, then there is just the Self and we're back to no selfless acts.

Sure I see people who care about others, but only because they care about themselves.
Ibid.
But for all we know it is the other way around. Especially in a no self universe. There is care and it aims in different directions. Why said it is only about what only seems to be inside?

There is no mechanism to care about someone else because in order to do so, you'd have to BE them.

Why should I care if someone falls off a cliff? I am not them, so it has no effect on me. But if I were a Corsican Brother, then I might have a mechanism to care and that mechanism is the direct suffering of consequences as if I were them (by magic). Now, someone falling from a cliff might bother me if I can relate in such a way that I also suffer direct consequences (empathy), but I only care about the guy falling off the cliff because of the damage it will do to me. Maybe I'll have to live with myself for not helping prevent the fall. Maybe imagery of the event would be traumatic. Maybe I'd be worried about public perception. Maybe the only reason I'd try to save the guy is to win some recognition as a hero so that I could then claim it's nothing and anybody would have done the same. Who knows, but it could only be about me because there is no other mechanism for motivation.

My heart goes out to the animals https://www.gofundme.com/tammie-hedges-legal-battle I don't want to help them because I care about them, but because I don't like feeling bad knowing they are without homes after having previously had homes. Domesticated animals don't belong in the wild.

I care less about the people because they're too likely to be pricks who'd cut me off in traffic and cling dogmatically to failed arguments online and just generally not playing fair nor being considerate even though they have the capacity to. At least animals can cite cognitive impairment as excuse for lack of consideration.

Until then you're just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.
You're the one talking down at me as if you and the philosophy 101 students have the ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.


If I see a mother doing something for her child ...

Why wouldn't I say that she cares about the child?

Why would I say that she cares only about herself?

She doesn't ONLY care about herself, but she cares about the child BECAUSE she cares about herself. If the child dies, it would hurt her, so if she doesn't want to be hurt, she has to care for the child.

This does not fit with my experience. Further you are putting it into a causal chain of events - leading to the child's death. A mother cares for her child in attitude and feeling directly on sight. It is not for something. Evolution is not teleological. It just is. Whether it was adapative or not AND THAT'S WHY IT SURVIVED AS A TRAIT has nothing to do with what it is for or doing in the mother. She cares about the child, period. That is what she is, someone who cares about her offspring. She is also a creature that cares about herself. There is no need to reduce her care to one kind of care, especially for someone who does not believe in selves or considers inside and outside illusory.

You keep bringing reality into the conversation as an objection, but if we're going to talk about reality then there is nothing to talk about. There is no mother, child, you, or me, and not only is there nothing to talk about, there is no one to talk about it. So either we describe (cut something out of something) abstractions and relate them to other abstractions or we stare at a wall in realization that there is just the staring without a wall nor an onlooker.

Assuming you find it more entertaining to contemplate things rather than melt out of existence, then from a point of view in this universe, a mother can only care about her child because she cares about herself and, in some way, harm to the child will cause harm to the mother.

That doesn't mean evolution is teleological

2. Evolution: Social Species are Programmed to do Good
Social behaviour that benefits others is a feature of genetic programming in all social species, and its success as an evolutionary strategy has made it "a part of the behavioural repertoire of social animals, so it can be expected to develop much further in intelligent and intensely social animals, like our human ancestors"4. The neurological rewards are what you seek when you do seemingly "altruistic" things. Those who do good often are addicted to the drugs released in our brains; they do it for the rush even if they don't know it. This isn't a bad thing, of course, the only negative aspect is that they think they do it for the general good when in fact they do it for the neurological high that it brings. An ideal model of unthinking genetically inherited social behaviour is that of ants and bees and other worker insects. At this extreme we see that even the most selfless social behaviour can be genetically predetermined.
http://www.humantruth.info/altruism.html

That pretty much says it all.

We put ourselves on pedestals.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:33 am

Greatest I am wrote:The only god you can know is you and yes, if you accept that you are your own master, you can control yourself.

How is the thing that does the controlling and the thing that is controlled the same thing?

To mane any other your god does not give you control of him. It slaves you to him.

Some folks see freedom in slavery.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

I currently believe that any mind picture of God is a graven image and it's more prudent to not try to conceptualize God. Faith is not-clinging.


Faith without facts is not wanting to know the truth.

Faith is letting go of everything.




What do you make of the verse:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Let me let Jesus answer that.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

By that are you saying salvation is a function of knowledge?


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


It is not a direction to keep the commandments, but keeping the commandments is evidence of a saved condition.


Firstly, the commandments are garbage.
Second, if your last were true, than all Christians are condemned as they break the first few commandments by putting Jesus above Yahweh.


As I said, though, keeping the commandments are evidence like fruit on a tree is evidence as to what kind of tree it is. The act of keeping the law doesn't cause salvation, but salvation causes a propensity to keep the law (whatever the law is). IOW, if doing an act would save you, then in order to do the act, you'd already have to be saved. I don't think any religion can have action for its basis, "lest any man should boast."

Reminds me of this Alan Watts bit:

We're always trying to find a way to be one up.
So how do I not do that?
Why do you want to know?
Well, I'd be better that way.
Yeah but why do you want to be better? You see, the reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren't.

We aren't better because we want to be.

Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Because all the do-gooders in the world, whether they are doing good for others or doing it for themselves, are trouble-makers. On the basis of, "Kindly let me help you or you'll drown", said the monkey, putting the fish safely up a tree.


Any act of improvement (law keeping, acts, works, acquiring knowledge, etc) will be full of conceit, "lest any man should boast".

Salvation is a gift and you don't have to do anything to get it, and actually, doing something to get it is the only way to get rid of it lol

Predestination supports the idea that there is nothing to be done.


Not to me. It indicates that many will seek a Christ consciousness and find it.

After we find it, then what?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:06 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:[
But caring about others is caring about yourself.
In a no self universe, why would caring for others boil down to care for oneself. Wouldn't it simply be caring?

But removing the self does not disturb my argument that no selfless acts exists because if there is only the love and no lover or loveee, then there is just the Self and we're back to no selfless acts.
We may be back to no selfless acts, but not to caring about others boils down to caring about yourself, which in that wording indicates the stuff in your mind emotions and body over here. Not this self that includes both what some think of as themselves and what they some think of as the other. When it gets worded as it really is about you caring for you, that does not have the same connotations as THERE IS CARING with the universe conceived of as one SELF. They mean the same thing to you. But it will not be taken that way and really shouldn't be by others. Since putting it as it is really about yourself includes a self here and the other person there. There is a difference between asserting that there are no selfless acts and asserting that really it is all about caring for oneself.

There is no mechanism to care about someone else because in order to do so, you'd have to BE them.
I find this mechanism exists.

Why should I care if someone falls off a cliff? I am not them, so it has no effect on me. But if I were a Corsican Brother, then I might have a mechanism to care and that mechanism is the direct suffering of consequences as if I were them (by magic). Now, someone falling from a cliff might bother me if I can relate in such a way that I also suffer direct consequences (empathy), but I only care about the guy falling off the cliff because of the damage it will do to me.
Well, not in my experience and I do not experience it as damage.

Maybe I'll have to live with myself for not helping prevent the fall.
I don't experience empathy this way or about consequences. It is a kind of intimacy in the moment.

Maybe imagery of the event would be traumatic. Maybe I'd be worried about public perception. Maybe the only reason I'd try to save the guy is to win some recognition as a hero so that I could then claim it's nothing and anybody would have done the same. Who knows, but it could only be about me because there is no other mechanism for motivation.
I don't find mammals to be like this as a rule, though some are and all are in some circumstances.

My heart goes out to the animals https://www.gofundme.com/tammie-hedges-legal-battle I don't want to help them because I care about them, but because I don't like feeling bad knowing they are without homes after having previously had homes. Domesticated animals don't belong in the wild.
OK, my empathy for animals has to do with them. I may ALSO become concerned about my feeling bad.


Until then you're just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.
You're the one talking down at me as if you and the philosophy 101 students have the ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.[/quote]

If I see a mother doing something for her child ...

Why wouldn't I say that she cares about the child?

You keep bringing reality into the conversation as an objection, but if we're going to talk about reality then there is nothing to talk about. There is no mother, child, you, or me, and not only is there nothing to talk about, there is no one to talk about it. So either we describe (cut something out of something) abstractions and relate them to other abstractions or we stare at a wall in realization that there is just the staring without a wall nor an onlooker.
I love being criticized for bringing reality into the conversation.

Assuming you find it more entertaining to contemplate things rather than melt out of existence, then from a point of view in this universe, a mother can only care about her child because she cares about herself and, in some way, harm to the child will cause harm to the mother.


2. Evolution: Social Species are Programmed to do Good
Social behaviour that benefits others is a feature of genetic programming in all social species, and its success as an evolutionary strategy has made it "a part of the behavioural repertoire of social animals, so it can be expected to develop much further in intelligent and intensely social animals, like our human ancestors"4. The neurological rewards are what you seek when you do seemingly "altruistic" things. Those who do good often are addicted to the drugs released in our brains; they do it for the rush even if they don't know it. This isn't a bad thing, of course, the only negative aspect is that they think they do it for the general good when in fact they do it for the neurological high that it brings. An ideal model of unthinking genetically inherited social behaviour is that of ants and bees and other worker insects. At this extreme we see that even the most selfless social behaviour can be genetically predetermined.
http://www.humantruth.info/altruism.html
How something arose and why it might lead to success is not what it is. She cares, not so that her genes will go forward, but because she cares about the baby.

That pretty much says it all.

We put ourselves on pedestals.
[/quote]I feel like I am in a chair. I do less well than many species and certainly individual members of species, that are generally not considered pedastal worthy.

I did not respond to Watts stuff here. And I will point out that you are judging people who hold the position different from yours here for something like the sin of pride.

I wish you could keep it about your thoughts on the subject and not your thoughts about our motivations.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:17 pm

First, any being who would be capable of purely selfless actions only is more fabulous than the phoenix. It cannot even be imagined clearly because from the start the whole concept of "selfless action," if carefully examined, evaporates into the air. Never has a man done anything that was only for others; and without any personal motivation. Indeed, how could he do anything that had no reference to himself, that is, with no inner compulsion (which would have to be based on a personal need)? How could the ego act without ego? http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/frie ... b645f.html
Notice the phrasing :
"Never has a man done anything that was only for others; and without any personal motivation."

"Indeed, how could he do anything that had no reference to himself, that is, with no inner compulsion"
There's no such thing as altruism. No such thing as a truly selfless act. HAHA LUNG, Mind Control: The Ancient Art of Psychological Warfare
Here as well :
"No such thing as a truly selfless act. We always get paid, one way or another."

I didn't say anything which contradicts it.

I said that I see nothing wrong with getting something from the act. Every act is some combination of 'interest for self' and 'interest for other' - the Ying-Yang of motivation. (I have written it at least 5 times by now.)

Water is water even if it is not perfectly pure.

Caring for others is still caring for others even if you do get something out of it.

Love is still love even if you get a benefit.

Serendipper is completely hung up on the idea of 100% selfless act. He only has 2 categories - 100% selfish and 100% selfless. And he has to stuff every experience into one or the other.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:07 am

Yes, I tried to get at this by saying there is a difference between saying there are no selfless acts and saying that really when you care for another it is caring for yourself.

I also think he introduction and instrumental element in things like empathy, and that this is a category error. I don't feel empathy so that X.

Evolution may have selected for empathy because it led to X.

But that does not mean that that I am feeling for you when you lost your wife so that X.

I do not feel empathy to prevent myself from feeling guilty if you die. I do not feel empathy to. I am that creature that feels empathy.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:09 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:We may be back to no selfless acts, but not to caring about others boils down to caring about yourself, which in that wording indicates the stuff in your mind emotions and body over here. Not this self that includes both what some think of as themselves and what they some think of as the other. When it gets worded as it really is about you caring for you, that does not have the same connotations as THERE IS CARING with the universe conceived of as one SELF. They mean the same thing to you. But it will not be taken that way and really shouldn't be by others. Since putting it as it is really about yourself includes a self here and the other person there. There is a difference between asserting that there are no selfless acts and asserting that really it is all about caring for oneself.

Yes I concede that distinction. If there are no selves or others, then no one can have a selfish motive except the Self (capital S, brahman, ground of being, universe, whatever).

There is no mechanism to care about someone else because in order to do so, you'd have to BE them.
I find this mechanism exists.

Can you describe it? The way I see it, the only way you can care about someone else is if an effect on them affects you, which makes it about you instead of them. And now that I think about it, even if you were them, it would still be about you since you are them. There seems to be no way out.

You are the internal and everyone else is in the external world. You have "feelers" extended into the external world to gather info and you can only respond to that info, so there is no mechanism to respond to info that doesn't cross your feelers. IOW, if I drop dead later tonight, you'd have no mechanism to know it. If you heard the news, you might not like the way the news made you feel, so it would be about you and not me.

Maybe imagery of the event would be traumatic. Maybe I'd be worried about public perception. Maybe the only reason I'd try to save the guy is to win some recognition as a hero so that I could then claim it's nothing and anybody would have done the same. Who knows, but it could only be about me because there is no other mechanism for motivation.
I don't find mammals to be like this as a rule, though some are and all are in some circumstances.

The other day I was witness to a cat fight. One female is scared of another female which always provokes an attack, so while the attack was ensuing, a third female ran to the aid of the scared female and then I had 3 cats going at it until the scared one managed to break free and run, leaving the two shredding each other. What prompted the 3rd cat to come to the aid of the scared cat? Why would she care?

My heart goes out to the animals https://www.gofundme.com/tammie-hedges-legal-battle I don't want to help them because I care about them, but because I don't like feeling bad knowing they are without homes after having previously had homes. Domesticated animals don't belong in the wild.
OK, my empathy for animals has to do with them. I may ALSO become concerned about my feeling bad.

Your empathy is a sense organ that detected pain no differently than if you touched a hot stove and pulled away. I suspect you're pedestalizing empathy as something higher than merely another mechanism to feel the world.

This takes us back to Goethe "Thinking… is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." And so empathy perceives other forms of pain and truth.

You keep bringing reality into the conversation as an objection, but if we're going to talk about reality then there is nothing to talk about. There is no mother, child, you, or me, and not only is there nothing to talk about, there is no one to talk about it. So either we describe (cut something out of something) abstractions and relate them to other abstractions or we stare at a wall in realization that there is just the staring without a wall nor an onlooker.
I love being criticized for bringing reality into the conversation.

I thought you'd like that :D

2. Evolution: Social Species are Programmed to do Good
Social behaviour that benefits others is a feature of genetic programming in all social species, and its success as an evolutionary strategy has made it "a part of the behavioural repertoire of social animals, so it can be expected to develop much further in intelligent and intensely social animals, like our human ancestors"4. The neurological rewards are what you seek when you do seemingly "altruistic" things. Those who do good often are addicted to the drugs released in our brains; they do it for the rush even if they don't know it. This isn't a bad thing, of course, the only negative aspect is that they think they do it for the general good when in fact they do it for the neurological high that it brings. An ideal model of unthinking genetically inherited social behaviour is that of ants and bees and other worker insects. At this extreme we see that even the most selfless social behaviour can be genetically predetermined.
http://www.humantruth.info/altruism.html
How something arose and why it might lead to success is not what it is. She cares, not so that her genes will go forward, but because she cares about the baby.

She can only care about herself. For instance my mom was more worried about me hurting myself than how she was hurting me by locking me in a metaphorical cage for my own protection (and why she turned me into a rebel). She didn't care about me, she cared about herself and her inability to deal with the fact that I might get hurt if I went outside.

That pretty much says it all.

We put ourselves on pedestals.
I feel like I am in a chair.

LOL not literally, silly!

This reminds me of Alan giving account of Jesus who admonished those who prayed in the front of the group to be seen by the group and admired for their fervent devotion. Upon hearing that, the worshippers moved to the back of the group only to find they were all, once again, back in the front row LOL! You get it? In trying to be humble, they were expressing their pride.

We're always trying to find a way to be one up.
So how do I not do that?
Why do you want to know?
Well, I'd be better that way.
Yeah but why do you want to be better?
You see, the reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren't. We aren't better because we want to be.


Start at about 2:00



I did not respond to Watts stuff here.

I think all I wanted is for you not to generalize all eastern thinkers, but just take Watt's points point-by-point as if they were anonymously stated. I didn't want you to avoid him like the plague.

And I will point out that you are judging people who hold the position different from yours here for something like the sin of pride.

And you're judging me as judgmental. We can't escaping judging people (as far as I can tell).

I wish you could keep it about your thoughts on the subject and not your thoughts about our motivations.

But the subject is our motivations. How are we to discussion selfless acts without motivations?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:25 am

phyllo wrote:
First, any being who would be capable of purely selfless actions only is more fabulous than the phoenix. It cannot even be imagined clearly because from the start the whole concept of "selfless action," if carefully examined, evaporates into the air. Never has a man done anything that was only for others; and without any personal motivation. Indeed, how could he do anything that had no reference to himself, that is, with no inner compulsion (which would have to be based on a personal need)? How could the ego act without ego? http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/frie ... b645f.html
Notice the phrasing :
"Never has a man done anything that was only for others; and without any personal motivation."

"Indeed, how could he do anything that had no reference to himself, that is, with no inner compulsion"
There's no such thing as altruism. No such thing as a truly selfless act. HAHA LUNG, Mind Control: The Ancient Art of Psychological Warfare
Here as well :
"No such thing as a truly selfless act. We always get paid, one way or another."

I didn't say anything which contradicts it.

I said that I see nothing wrong with getting something from the act. Every act is some combination of 'interest for self' and 'interest for other' - the Ying-Yang of motivation. (I have written it at least 5 times by now.)

Water is water even if it is not perfectly pure.

Caring for others is still caring for others even if you do get something out of it.

Love is still love even if you get a benefit.

Serendipper is completely hung up on the idea of 100% selfless act. He only has 2 categories - 100% selfish and 100% selfless. And he has to stuff every experience into one or the other.

And you have categories which are completely arbitrary or perhaps randomly delineated and therefore inherently undefinable and therefore nonexistent.

The categories are 100% because there is 0% mechanism to care about anyone else. If you disagree, you must provide rationale to demonstrate the mechanism by which any being could care about another being that isn't already explain by selfish motivation. Saying "It doesn't match my experience" is not rationale nor demonstration. Until then, you're being dogmatic in holding beliefs that cannot be substantiated.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:30 pm

Serendipper wrote:Can you describe it? The way I see it, the only way you can care about someone else is if an effect on them affects you, which makes it about you instead of them.
So your thoughts here are really about you. They are what is triggered when you think about me. They are not about me.

IOW, if I drop dead later tonight, you'd have no mechanism to know it. If you heard the news, you might not like the way the news made you feel, so it would be about you and not me.
Jumping to a death scenario, yes, that is trickier. But if I am watching you suffer and I feel compassion for you, this is not just compassion about me.

The other day I was witness to a cat fight. One female is scared of another female which always provokes an attack, so while the attack was ensuing, a third female ran to the aid of the scared female and then I had 3 cats going at it until the scared one managed to break free and run, leaving the two shredding each other. What prompted the 3rd cat to come to the aid of the scared cat? Why would she care?
I'd have to know the cats. I had a dog who would get in between me and my girlfriend. He get upset if he thought someone was looking to aggressive. It was very annoying when it was me. :D And I loved when he thought it was her, shifted to sit in front of me and made sounds of disapproval at her. Of course some animals will do this for members of other species they don't even know.

Your empathy is a sense organ that detected pain no differently than if you touched a hot stove and pulled away. I suspect you're pedestalizing empathy as something higher than merely another mechanism to feel the world.
You would then, mean, feel yourself. If that is the parallel. And being on the recieving end of this 'sensing' is nothing like being looked at, or smelled. I can tell it is about me and that, often, feels good. I feel the other person there with me. It gives me strength. Sometimes it takes away self-judgments that are hallucinated on my part - that I should 'take it all in stride' or whatever platitude or self-expection I might be feeling alongside the pain I feel.

This takes us back to Goethe "Thinking… is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." And so empathy perceives other forms of pain and truth.
Well, you'se thinking some ideas, but now I understand they are not about me but about you. :D


I feel like I am in a chair. [/quote]
LOL not literally, silly!
I was being metaphorical. You are stating that I am pedastalizing. Which I take to mean, praising my behavior, claiming false goodness or specialness. (though again, this would all be about you, not even SELF) But I don't experience this pedastalizing. I see other mammals with very strong empathy, supposedly simpler or lesser beasts. I am used to this. I see animals forgive, or let go of grudges. I have seen a dog seconds after having porcupine needles pulled from his nose, comfort me since I was upset that I had hurt him so much getting them out. (a few second before he wanted to rip my throat out and if he wasn't wrapped in a blanket, oh, oh.) But he dropped that immediately. If I get into the moral praise aspects, I do not feel especially special. Nor does it seem that fantastic, me always having been immersed in mammalian empathy of various kinds. I have a categorical disagreement. Maybe I am wrong, but this shift to my motivations, is just a mind reading claim.

We're always trying to find a way to be one up.
So how do I not do that?
Why do you want to know?
Well, I'd be better that way.
Yeah but why do you want to be better?
You see, the reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren't. We aren't better because we want to be.
I guess I'll just keep saying that no, that is not my experience. I think I am talking about what is, perhaps incorrectly. And here you are going ad hom - I do understand that it is a general ad hom, likely including you, but an ad hom nonetheless. The reasons why I might want it to be the way I am saying it are no the topic. You are off topic.

I think all I wanted is for you not to generalize all eastern thinkers, but just take Watt's points point-by-point as if they were anonymously stated. I didn't want you to avoid him like the plague.
I think I did that, and in any case, I have no problem avoiding responding to Watts' arguments or assertions.

And you're judging me as judgmental. We can't escaping judging people (as far as I can tell).
my point with saying that you were judging people as having the sin of pride, was not me saying I do not judge people and am better than you. I was pointing out 1) that you are not accepting, even, what is outside you. You are judging that as bad in some way, rather than simply demonstrating acceptance. And 2) you are off topic. The topic is not me or us as far as potential motives for believing X, the topic is 'is X true?'

But the subject is our motivations. How are we to discussion selfless acts without motivations?

The motivations for the act or for empathy can be on the table. The motivation for holding my position on what those motivations are or are not or the motivation for holding the position I have on what the nature of empathy are not on the table. They could be the subjects of another discussion, but here they are ad hom. Because they are not the topic but it is an attempt to say why I believe what I believe, instead of showing that my belief is incorrect.

Perhaps your motivation for believing, for example, that it's all about yourself in empathy is because you had a shitty mom. But you still might be right. I still need to deal with your arguments. It's off topic.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:50 pm

The categories are 100% because there is 0% mechanism to care about anyone else. If you disagree, you must provide rationale to demonstrate the mechanism by which any being could care about another being that isn't already explain by selfish motivation. Saying "It doesn't match my experience" is not rationale nor demonstration. Until then, you're being dogmatic in holding beliefs that cannot be substantiated.
If you think that your philosophy is sufficient, then you will hang on to it no matter what I say.

From my experience, it does not adequately describe human interactions.

Take it or leave it. I don't really need to do or demonstrate anything. I'm not preaching here.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:16 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Can you describe it? The way I see it, the only way you can care about someone else is if an effect on them affects you, which makes it about you instead of them.
So your thoughts here are really about you. They are what is triggered when you think about me. They are not about me.

I suspect you're using "about" in two different senses which then get conflated. My thoughts here are about me (the motivation to have the thoughts is from me), but are not about me (the thoughts themselves have to do with something that is not me).

My impression of the world has to do with how I'm put together, but it also has to do with how the world is put together.

IOW, if I drop dead later tonight, you'd have no mechanism to know it. If you heard the news, you might not like the way the news made you feel, so it would be about you and not me.
Jumping to a death scenario, yes, that is trickier. But if I am watching you suffer and I feel compassion for you, this is not just compassion about me.

I just wanted to illustrate a bad happening X happened to me and then show you have no mechanism to be affected by it until you gain knowledge of it and at that point it's the knowledge you wouldn't like.

The other day I was witness to a cat fight. One female is scared of another female which always provokes an attack, so while the attack was ensuing, a third female ran to the aid of the scared female and then I had 3 cats going at it until the scared one managed to break free and run, leaving the two shredding each other. What prompted the 3rd cat to come to the aid of the scared cat? Why would she care?
I'd have to know the cats. I had a dog who would get in between me and my girlfriend. He get upset if he thought someone was looking to aggressive. It was very annoying when it was me. :D And I loved when he thought it was her, shifted to sit in front of me and made sounds of disapproval at her. Of course some animals will do this for members of other species they don't even know.

I thought the cat example was interesting because cats aren't as smart as dogs and generally aren't pack animals. From my philosophy, the helpful cat was assisting the other cat because that was the best scenario for it. It's like if we were walking down the street and someone attacked me, you'd have to help me fight or else possibly lose a friend (assuming you couldn't be friends with the attacker), so you'd have to protect your interests (ie me).

Your empathy is a sense organ that detected pain no differently than if you touched a hot stove and pulled away. I suspect you're pedestalizing empathy as something higher than merely another mechanism to feel the world.
You would then, mean, feel yourself. If that is the parallel. And being on the recieving end of this 'sensing' is nothing like being looked at, or smelled. I can tell it is about me and that, often, feels good. I feel the other person there with me. It gives me strength. Sometimes it takes away self-judgments that are hallucinated on my part - that I should 'take it all in stride' or whatever platitude or self-expection I might be feeling alongside the pain I feel.

Yes I think you understand. We are a center of awareness within the universe that is receiving external inputs. I don't want to lose my hand because that would hurt me; I don't want to lose you because that would affect me; I don't want to see animals suffer because that would affect me. It's all the same: some information comes in and the center of awareness judges it good or bad. It's the relation between the internal and external that results in a declaration of good or bad.

This takes us back to Goethe "Thinking… is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." And so empathy perceives other forms of pain and truth.
Well, you'se thinking some ideas, but now I understand they are not about me but about you. :D

Eyes need light in order to see colors and I need something to think about in order to think, so it's more than just me, but the relationship between me and the external.

LOL not literally, silly!
I was being metaphorical. You are stating that I am pedastalizing. Which I take to mean, praising my behavior, claiming false goodness or specialness. (though again, this would all be about you, not even SELF) But I don't experience this pedastalizing. I see other mammals with very strong empathy, supposedly simpler or lesser beasts. I am used to this. I see animals forgive, or let go of grudges. I have seen a dog seconds after having porcupine needles pulled from his nose, comfort me since I was upset that I had hurt him so much getting them out. (a few second before he wanted to rip my throat out and if he wasn't wrapped in a blanket, oh, oh.) But he dropped that immediately. If I get into the moral praise aspects, I do not feel especially special. Nor does it seem that fantastic, me always having been immersed in mammalian empathy of various kinds. I have a categorical disagreement. Maybe I am wrong, but this shift to my motivations, is just a mind reading claim.

I have no doubt that you're feeling empathy, but I'm trying to say that empathy is no different than any other sense faculty. The attempt to separate empathy as something different than merely that is itself a pedestalization of empathy.

We're always trying to find a way to be one up.
So how do I not do that?
Why do you want to know?
Well, I'd be better that way.
Yeah but why do you want to be better?
You see, the reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren't. We aren't better because we want to be.
I guess I'll just keep saying that no, that is not my experience. I think I am talking about what is, perhaps incorrectly. And here you are going ad hom - I do understand that it is a general ad hom, likely including you, but an ad hom nonetheless. The reasons why I might want it to be the way I am saying it are no the topic. You are off topic.

I don't see how it's off topic.

I think all I wanted is for you not to generalize all eastern thinkers, but just take Watt's points point-by-point as if they were anonymously stated. I didn't want you to avoid him like the plague.
I think I did that, and in any case, I have no problem avoiding responding to Watts' arguments or assertions.

Ok fine. I give up.

And you're judging me as judgmental. We can't escaping judging people (as far as I can tell).
my point with saying that you were judging people as having the sin of pride, was not me saying I do not judge people and am better than you. I was pointing out 1) that you are not accepting, even, what is outside you. You are judging that as bad in some way, rather than simply demonstrating acceptance.

Acceptance is a virtue now? So I should accept foul smells and all manner of offense with open arms lest I reject something and get labeled "judgmental"? No, I reject that.

And 2) you are off topic. The topic is not me or us as far as potential motives for believing X, the topic is 'is X true?'

I don't see how we can discuss the topic without examples of the topic.

But the subject is our motivations. How are we to discussion selfless acts without motivations?

The motivations for the act or for empathy can be on the table. The motivation for holding my position on what those motivations are or are not or the motivation for holding the position I have on what the nature of empathy are not on the table. They could be the subjects of another discussion, but here they are ad hom. Because they are not the topic but it is an attempt to say why I believe what I believe, instead of showing that my belief is incorrect.

Well, I'll take a cue from your playbook and simply say I disagree and cite my experience as evidence. Hey that was easy :lol: I'm invincible now because who can refute my experience. :evilfun:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:52 am

phyllo wrote:
The categories are 100% because there is 0% mechanism to care about anyone else. If you disagree, you must provide rationale to demonstrate the mechanism by which any being could care about another being that isn't already explain by selfish motivation. Saying "It doesn't match my experience" is not rationale nor demonstration. Until then, you're being dogmatic in holding beliefs that cannot be substantiated.
If you think that your philosophy is sufficient, then you will hang on to it no matter what I say.

No, that's you, not me. To wit:

From my experience, it does not adequately describe human interactions.

Take it or leave it. I don't really need to do or demonstrate anything. I'm not preaching here.

That's obviously false as evidenced by your continued replying on the matter. Had you really held that notion, you would have stated so days ago: "Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it." But you didn't. You tried every argument you could conceive and finally, after being totally exhausted, you paint the picture as if you never really cared.

I have all of academia and some of the greatest minds on philosophy on the side of my argument and your retort is simply "well, it doesn't match my experience" which = "nothing nor no one will ever convince me!" That's dogmatism.

What a powerful thing you've stumbled onto. Heck, I don't need a brain at all, but can simply say "that doesn't match my experience, so I win!"

There is no god.
That doesn't match my experience, so you're wrong.

There is no free will.
That doesn't match my experience, so you're wrong.

There is no objectivity.
That doesn't match my experience, so you're wrong.

Claim: X
I'm going to disagree with whatever you say in order to have an adversary who I can then defeat by simply saying their claim doesn't match my experience. All hail me! I am the smartest person here by simply having the hardest head! :bow-blue: me :royalty-king:

Brains are antiquated. Who needs brains when it's the amount of bone in the head that matters. That is precisely why it's impossible to argue with conservatives.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:21 pm

Sure, there's a mechanism. I see the person in pain, I feel for them.
Some people do not have that mechanism.
Reptiles tend not to.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:16 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, there's a mechanism. I see the person in pain, I feel for them.
Some people do not have that mechanism.
Reptiles tend not to.

Plants can feel other plants (the extent to which a plant can feel), but the reason it reacts is the same reason it reacts to its own threats. The plant has no way of differentiating self from other, it just does what the chemicals tells it to. The fact that we think we are different from plants is a pedestalization of ourselves. We're smarter, sure, but not more divine. The plant is a sensing creature just like insects and animals and we're all dimensionless points looking out at the world. Being a point looking outward means we can only care about the point and what causes pain to that point.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:49 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, there's a mechanism. I see the person in pain, I feel for them.
Some people do not have that mechanism.
Reptiles tend not to.

Plants can feel other plants (the extent to which a plant can feel), but the reason it reacts is the same reason it reacts to its own threats. The plant has no way of differentiating self from other, it just does what the chemicals tells it to. The fact that we think we are different from plants is a pedestalization of ourselves. We're smarter, sure, but not more divine. The plant is a sensing creature just like insects and animals and we're all dimensionless points looking out at the world. Being a point looking outward means we can only care about the point and what causes pain to that point.
They now know that trees will share water with other trees that are not doing well in times of drought. Even across species. Trees inform other trees of parasites and other kinds of threats. Dying trees will send their nutrients to other trees, again also across species. I haven't argued I am divine. I don't put us on a pedastal. I am trying to describe what I think is. Maybe I am wrong. But every time you add in hallucinations - like 'divine' - or other words that imply I have emotional goals, you are ad homming implicitly.

And why am I capable of pedastalizing X, if I am not capable of empathy?

IOW why bother labeling something negatively, this would also just be chemicals telling me what to do.

Now you may say, oh, sure pedastalizing is just you doing what chemicals tell you to do. But then there is no need to give it some term with an implicit lowering.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:40 pm

There is only energy and matter. (As far as we know.)

And those two 'things' form the infinite variety of the universe.

Within it we find patterns of caring, love, empathy, indifference, selfless action, selfish action, ...
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:39 pm

It's possible to conceptualize existence at many levels of abstraction. But if you conceptualize at a lower level of abstraction, you lose useful information.

For example, if you conceptualize the universe as energy, then you can't find a cat in a room. The cat blends into the background because it is merely energy 'within' energy.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:23 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I haven't argued I am divine.

I didn't say you did, but now you're reading things into things where there ain't things. I didn't mention the word "you" in my post at all and specifically chose to word "we" to avoid such development, which is becoming more and more predictable, as biggie pointed out here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=194298&start=50#p2710598

Just quit it and let's forget it and move on. You're not in everyone's crosshairs. "You" is a general word meaning "people in general" and not necessarily you specifically.

Divine merely means "supernatural", "above nature" or "superior to nature". "I'm better than nature because I have divine attributes like love." Clinging to concepts like love is patting ourselves on the back for being better than the simian and is a manifestation of arrogance.

I don't put us on a pedastal.

I didn't say you did, but now that you mention it, if you're human, yes you do because all humans do it. We're always trying to find a way to be one-up.

Image

And she found a way to be superior to him by pointing our he's trying to be superior to the atheists and christians. We're always trying to be one-up and if you say you're not, then that's a manifestation of trying to be one-up (putting yourself on a pedestal). You're putting yourself on a pedestal by proclaiming that you do not put mankind on a pedestal.

Alan said "Gurus are always putting each other down, so I can say I don't put other gurus down. You see? That trumps all of them!"

All roads lead to arrogance. Regardless of the topic, we will always end the discussion with the realization of arrogance (or so it seems).

I am trying to describe what I think is. Maybe I am wrong. But every time you add in hallucinations - like 'divine' - or other words that imply I have emotional goals, you are ad homming implicitly.

And you're jumping to conclusions without clarifying what I meant by divine. You're pedestalizing yourself by proclaiming my insight is a hallucination and my discussion about mankind is an ad hom because you think "we" = "you", which is itself a hallucination and ad hom straight from Goebbels' "accuse the other side of what you're doing" playbook.

And why am I capable of pedastalizing X, if I am not capable of empathy?

You (humans in general) do not need empathy to be arrogant. Psychopaths completely devoid of empathy are some of the most arrogant pricks around.

IOW why bother labeling something negatively, this would also just be chemicals telling me what to do.

I guess because the chemicals tell me to. If you want to delude yourself into believing you have attributes that you do not have, then that's awesome, but if you post it on here, I'm liable to attack it for the same reason I spit out food that doesn't taste good. This is a philosophy board where we're supposed to be discerning some truths instead of agreeing to disagree.

Now you may say, oh, sure pedastalizing is just you doing what chemicals tell you to do. But then there is no need to give it some term with an implicit lowering.

Fine. I concede. Living in fantasy land has no negative association. People are free to believe they are gods all they want. They can even try to fly and I encourage all who hold such beliefs to stand on the highest ledge they can find and give it one hell of a shot! Think positively! :evilfun:

There is no objective good and bad, but there are subjective goods and bads relative to individual goals/aspirations/desires. I think it's a subjectively good idea for society to guarantee as a right the freedom to pursue one's desires/goals unless those desires conflict with someone else's desires. To that end, if people didn't run about thinking they are gods, we may be a collectively happier species.

Consider this AW bit concerning rascality:

As there is honor among thieves – we’re all thieves, let’s face it – there is a doctrine in the Jewish religion that when God created Adam he put into him a spirit which is called the yetzer hara and that means ‘the wayward spirit’ or what I call ‘the element of irreducible rascality’ – and that is in us all, a little bit. It’s not the whole of us; it’s like just a pinch of salt in the stew – and you don’t want the whole stew to be salt but you have to have just a touch of rascality to be human.

And I find it difficult to get along with people who don’t know that they have it, people who come on that they’re all sincere, all good, all pure, bore me to death and scare me, as they’re unconscious of themselves and therefore they suddenly do terrible things without warning, either to themselves or to others. They make promises that they’re never going to fulfill because they want to talk right and so if I do business with someone who is not really aware that he’s a rascal – I know he is impossible to do business with – he’ll suddenly cheat me completely. But if I’m aware that he’s a bit of a shyster I feel comfortable and I let him know that I am too.

Then we’re human, then we are letting our hair down, then we can say, “Look, let’s work this out, and this is what I want and I know what you want.” And if we can get that clear we can work out a reasonable agreement, we can compromise, we have a little play of give-and-take. But if you don’t have that, you’re absolutely snarled.


So when we admit we're selfish pricks, then we can truly get down to business with each other's interests in mind in a true spirit of honesty and fair play rather than starting with the presumption that we're righteous.

This hearkens back to Jesus' remarks concerning the taking of the high-room:

8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


So we admit we're rascals and windup being exalted, but if we start out as righteous, we're revealed as rascals.

Admitting you cannot love is more productive in a relationship than deluding yourself into thinking you can love because you'll have more insight and a better understanding as to why you must be attentive to someone else's needs for the benefit of your own. That's the philosophy I'm putting forth and holding.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:37 am

phyllo wrote:It's possible to conceptualize existence at many levels of abstraction. But if you conceptualize at a lower level of abstraction, you lose useful information.

For example, if you conceptualize the universe as energy, then you can't find a cat in a room. The cat blends into the background because it is merely energy 'within' energy.


I'm not sure about that because red light is 480Thz and yellow light is 540Thz and we can surely tell the difference between the two frequencies of energy. It is true that we must have a contrast, but energy evidently can be contrasted to itself via frequency.

Frequencies higher than 10^19 are gamma rays, which go up to 10^24 I think, but if we put E=hf=mc^2 and rearrange for f, then f = mc^2/h. If we substitute the mass of quarks, neutrinos, whatnot, then we get frequencies higher than gamma rays indicating that particles could be gamma rays with even more energy added. The cat is just a collection of localized densities of energy of varying frequencies against a backdrop of other frequencies (or lack thereof).
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:41 am

It's still just energy until you call it a cat.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:33 am

phyllo wrote:It's still just energy until you call it a cat.

It's still just energy even if I call it a cat.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:29 am

Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's still just energy until you call it a cat.

It's still just energy even if I call it a cat.
It's still a cat even if you call it energy. And calling it a cat let's us know a lot more about what it does and is capable of.
It's not jumping, it's energy.
Energy doesn't care about its young.
Become problematic when we focus on the catness of that batch of energy.

You could respond to me and Phyllo by simply typing

ENERGY

But you don't, you get specific and seem to think those specifics matter.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:55 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's still just energy until you call it a cat.

It's still just energy even if I call it a cat.
It's still a cat even if you call it energy. And calling it a cat let's us know a lot more about what it does and is capable of.
It's not jumping, it's energy.
Energy doesn't care about its young.
Become problematic when we focus on the catness of that batch of energy.

You could respond to me and Phyllo by simply typing

ENERGY

But you don't, you get specific and seem to think those specifics matter.

I think you missed the part about varying frequencies of energy. Yes, everything is energy, but the frequencies are different. On one of those science youtube videos that I like to watch, they unwound movie film from one end of the country to the other (they pretended) in order to represent the electromagnetic spectrum, then they cut 1 inch from the middle which represented the amount of the spectrum that we can see. So, 1 inch divided by the distance across the US is the % of the spectrum that we can see (visible light). It's an understatement to say there are a LOT of frequencies of energy. From 1 hz all the way to 10^24 hz and then all the particles which have even more energy. Who knows how far it goes.

An atom is 100,000 times bigger than the nucleus, so it's practically all empty space. And they've demonstrated the double slit experiment with buckyballs (60 carbon atoms I think), so even molecules aren't tangible things, but waves. It's all energy. There is nothing but energy.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:08 am

]Sure, but none of that goes against what I said or is news to me. I am certainly not arguing that cats are not energy.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:00 pm

Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's still just energy until you call it a cat.

It's still just energy even if I call it a cat.
Yes, I said that it is energy.

But it's hardly ever effective to think of it as energy.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:31 pm

phyllo wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's still just energy until you call it a cat.

It's still just energy even if I call it a cat.
Yes, I said that it is energy.

But it's hardly ever effective to think of it as energy.
Did you remember to get the energy for the energy, honey?

Honey, you crashed the car with the baby in it, and you were drunk.
It's just energy, sweetie.

And where would you like us to deliver the package?
Send it to energy.

I don't think a grizzly bear is the right pet for the kids, I thought you were getting a puppy.
They're both energy.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users