Jan, but do you feel the reasoning behind each and every name? I provided examples of why each name is appropriate, which you stupidly left out.
Read “The Virtue of Name-Calling” on the Trinity Foundation website.
Your superficial take on what is means to love someone is rooted in your superficial take on what it means to know and defend the truth.
Bruce will die a superficial person who never truly understood or lived his true reality ... as will you.
The loving thing for me to do is to tell you to your faces that you’re fools for pridefully ignoring your true destiny for some false life of personal desires and opinions.
And I do this because I know what you do not know and therefore love what you do not love.
Go read that piece, and see if you can understand it.
You’re an idiot. I could outthink you drunk.
Now, here’s my true teacher:
About 4 years ago the Pope visited the Shroud of Turin. He called it an ‘icon’ (idol) - sparing the town’s tourist trade from the fact that it is not a relic from Jesus’ tomb, but a medieval hoax, made by a charlatan to be sold to a gullible prince or prelate. (It’s likely that such buyers would already have in their collection something like the manger that Jesus was born in, the crown of thorns, or the water jug in which Jesus had turned the water into wine).
1. a painting of Jesus Christ or another holy figure, typically in a traditional style on wood, venerated and used as an aid to devotion in the Byzantine and other Eastern Churches.
synonyms: image, idol, portrait, likeness, representation, symbol, figure, statue, model
“an icon of the Madonna hangs on the wall”
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
“a self-confessed con artist and charlatan”
synonyms: quack, mountebank, sham, fraud, fake, humbug, impostor, pretender, masquerader, hoodwinker, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, dissembler, double-dealer, double-crosser, trickster, confidence trickster, cheater, swindler, fraudster, racketeer
Mario and Donald Trump share many qualities. One difference is that Trump has convinced 45% of the electorate that he knows what he is doing, and Mario is writing from a jar on the Sam Harris forum, frequented by maybe 30 people.
Unsmoked is a broken record. He is the only person on the forum who gets away with proselytizing, continually preaching the doctrine of Master Won Hung Lo. Well, if he can swing it freely here, at least he has done better than Mario, the brain-in-the jar.
According to Mario, his life is fuller, richer and better than anyone else’s. Most things that are in a jar for years are pickled - so I guess that explains his longevity.
Mario is sorta like the weatherman - usually wrong but people listen to him, anyway. Again, a lot like Trump.
Bruce, you forgot to answer any of the dozen questions I asked that were pertinent to your limp dick “faith” in God who never does anything to give anyone certainly of his existence.
What makes you deny everything you have heard about God?
It is not easy to become a new man and store up treasure in heaven, live like a pilgrim in this world, give your coat as well, be perfect as God is perfect, and so much more besides.
Very few of us enter through the narrow gate.
You are fooling yourself into thinking that you are pleasing to God in giving him your version of lip service.
The jury is in and the verdict has been read. Now you are trying to ignore the verdict and continue to argue your case.
It’s over. You are either for the truth that Jesus revealed or not.
And your life is the judge of which side you’re on.
Being friends with people is easy. We all do it every day.
Being a light for people because God is working through you is hard for it takes great sacrifice to overcome the old man, the selfish glutton.
You can’t fool me because I have experienced everything you deny is true, and so I see your weaknesses and lies.
Just stop talking about God and be the selfish pig you have always been.
Your judgment of me according to my place on this forum reveals the deeply delusional importance you place on a room full of idiots. Jan just wrote the other day that “Man created God”. Imagine the asshole behind such a proclamation.
Your insistence that you have no knowledge of God is a failure to seek this knowledge with the humility God demands, not some bullshit Trioonity taught you.
You make it easy to call you names.
Mario is a legend in his own mind. The greatest interpreter of God in the history of the world, sacrificing himself in a jar to harass 30 people on an obscure web site. What an important role he has been given - think of it ! The world will never be the same. He could have written a book that changed the world. He could have been acknowledged as a great theologian by the Catholic Church that he idolizes. But he sacrificed it all to throw shit at a few atheists and a Christian that he despises. What boundless humility! He sacrificed the fame that should have been his as the heir of Peter, Augustine, and Thomas to toss turds at Unsmoked, Nhoj, and Jan. How blessed we are to have God’s Man rub shit in our faces!
Sometimes the truth gets squeezed out of us as we fight like a selfish child to not believe it.
God absolutely does choose some of us to reveal himself to in ways the vast majority of us cannot receive such revelations, for the gate is indeed narrow and very few enter it.
How can our greatest achievements be widespread and as easy to obtain as a new box of cigars?
And how can a crowd of people who have met especially to tell each other about the cleverness of their opinions accept the truth about the emptiness of opinions?
No. Legends are not created in the mind, but by the power of God’s spirit moving a few of us to great deeds out of great love for the truth. Opinions are never great because they come from a human mind that has taken authority over God’s spirit.
The shit is already all over the faces on this forum, for everyone here is pulling out of their asses their denial of the truth in favor of their opinions.
I’m just pointing to it and going “eww”.
And when we write on the Internet it is linked to the Internet.
Type “no combination of lesser things ...” and you will get directed to my posts on the forum where I have provided this metaphysical principle for the first and only time it has been provided.
So the 30 or so people on this forum are not the judge of what I write here.
How are you not sensitive to such a reality?
. . .
Type “no combination of lesser things ...” and you will get directed to my posts. . . .
What if you type, “I’m the cursing Catholic moralist!”?
What makes you deny everything you have heard about God?
“In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.” - Mathew 7:12
Mario, have you heard that God wants you to be an arrogant, disdainful, bigot?
full of or expressing contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior : full of or expressing scorn or disdain
“In Old French bigot was a term of abuse for Normans, and possibly related to the oath bi got “by God.” In English and French, a bigot was originally a hypocrite, a person who claims to have certain moral beliefs but whose behavior doesn’t match those beliefs.
I realize that you are imagining yourself to be like Jesus, and whoever rejects you is rejecting God and is therefore going to hell.
According to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for delusional disorders, grandiose-type symptoms include grossly exaggerated beliefs of:
exceptional relationship to a divinity or famous person
And now abortion is being taken on again by the brilliant minds here.
The argument I can see so far is that women died when abortion was illegal, so that would happen again.
Would it? Is the procedure the same as 40 years ago? Would back alley persons who weren’t doctors be doing this procedure or would doctors in other states be a woman’s recourse to an abortion?
Think it through, man, I mean, since you’re brilliant and shit.
And what about a woman being thrown into jail for having an abortion.
Would she? Is the reversal of Roe the ushering in of such a police state solution to abortion or simply a narrowing of the timeline that women should be ripping a living being, which they most of the time freely choose to risk having grow in them, from them?
You see, o’ brilliant ones, science is a humanless enterprise at its core. It needs input from human beings to become truly useful to humanity in all of the areas that humanity truly experiences what it means to be human.
A woman’s and man’s freedom to fuck without concern for what fucking is designed to do is just one area of the human experience.
Maybe those of us who almost always see fucking as an erotic experience that nourishes the human psyche are not the best humans on the planet, just the humans that are setting the bar so low that everyone can climb over it.
Here’s a thing:
We all were in a womb. We all were once completely vunerable to our parents whims and escaped death from abortion.
But when in the womb did we become ourselves and not simply an embryo/fetus of ourselves?
Our hearts began beating in about 6 weeks. Our brains were quite formed in about 20 weeks. When during those weeks between 6 and 20 do we become ourselves, able to feel pain, move on our own, think some sort of thought?
It is at this moment, whenever that is, that abortion takes on a different reality. For if indeed we become ourselves at, let’s say, 12 weeks (which is what theologians have placed the approximate time for our unique “soul” to be placed into our bodies), then an abortion after that is indeed the killing of a human being and not the killing of only an ebryo/fetus of a human being.
This is the conversation that we should be having, but horny fuckers don’t want to have, and religious fundies don’t know how to have, and modern thinkers don’t think they should have.
As I have told you dazzling thinkers before, every power we have in our bodies needs its appropriate seat. We see because we have eyes to see. We think because we have a brain to think. But these seats are not the powers themselves, but a physical reality that connects us to the physical universe we find ourselves in.
So it follows that our “soul”, what makes us unique and individual, needed an appropriate seat also, not just some tissue and chemicals.
The science that teaches us when we begin to be individual human beings in our mother’s womb is the science that teaches us when our “soul” begins to exist, when we become ourselves.
The liberals of the world want women not only protected, but free to do anything they want to do with their bodies.
The conservatives of the world want life not only protected, but labeled a human being from the moment of conception.
Both groups of people are operating off of the only criteria they know and are therefore capable of understanding.
Religious and secular people rush to each side of the abortion debate that easily fits into their superficial understanding of reality.
The only true solution to the human reality of abortion, which no single person would call a very good and true reality, is for us to make a learned and human decision to not have abortions take place beyond the certain week of pregnancy when the living being inside a woman’s womb truly becomes an individual.
My learned and human vote is for 12 weeks, three months, the 1st trimester.
I don’t often wander into this thread - happy 2019 Mario!
On the one hand, my intuition says that something like 12 weeks makes sense.
On the other hand, I feel queasy about opining on this topic. It seems to me that on this topic, women’s voices ought to hold a lot more sway than men’s voices. It brings up soooo many issues. Should we somehow control how a pregnant woman treats her body while she’s pregnant ?! How about controlling her until a child is weaned ?! Yikes!
It seems a woman is not only thought of first but thought of only.
No person has the right to kill another person out of convenience, only out of necessity.
And we as persons were once in our mother’s womb.
When we became a person in the womb is vital knowledge if a woman is to be safe from committing a murderous act out of convenience.
A good woman would not want to be so vile, and it is a good woman who we should support, not a selfish woman who would do anything for her own freedom.
The fetus becomes an individual when it can survive on its own, which is around 20-22 weeks, IMHO. Some women don’t even know they are pregnant at 12 weeks. The issue is a legal/political one - how far can the government go in telling a woman what she can do with her body. Right now we have a compromise - about half way through the pregnancy is the current constitutional standard. Viability is a significant milestone. I’m for keeping it like it is - until viability it is the woman’s unhindered choice. After that the state gains a greater interest in the survival of the fetus. It’s a workable compromise that makes sense. Don’t mess it up. Reasonable people can disagree about issues. This position splits it down the middle and gives us a workable model. Giving the state the right to forbid a woman’s choice before then is overreaching and certainly not the “limited government” that conservatives say they believe in.
So if a woman has an abortion at 20 weeks, she is quite possibly murdering her “individual” unborn child.
So it would make perfect sense to limit abortions to well below 20 weeks to make sure that a living helpless “individual” human baby is not murdered by his or her own mother.
Unless, of course, one’s humble opinion is that a woman’s right to her own body is more profound and sacred than a woman’s responsibility to care for her individual and unique unborn child.
Somehow to me it just doesn’t seem good and true to choose an unhindered lifestyle at some point in a woman’s life over the death of her child.
Then there’s the reality that it wasn’t the child who got laid, so it shouldn’t be the child who pays for the mistake getting laid cost.
We live in a world where everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I have always found only very young children and animals to be innocent.
Among the !Kung San it is always the woman’s choice. And since they don’t have access to abortion, the choice made shortly after birth. A pregnant woman will go off alone to give birth and decide, based on such things as whether or not she will be able to continue caring for her other children, if the newborn is to live or die. Of course, the nation with the lowest rate of abortion is Holland where they have extensive sex education and free birth control.