Suffer the little children...
I posted down in the relationship's forum about getting involved with a man I knew I would have serious issues with.
Well. the first has already raised its ugly head. He was raised a Pentecostal Christian and he believes unbaptized children go to hell - even itty bitty ones who are a day or two old. He says these children go to hell to punish theiir parents with their suffering.
HUH!?
How can anyone who subscribes to this belief be a genuine, kind person in the here and now?????
Thoughts, please?
If my theory is correct, the more uncomfortable you are, the better a relationship you will have, so ... ;)
On a more serious note:
If that kind of belief is a deal breaker for you, then follow your own insticts and ethics regarding relationships.
Ask him what he thinks about Catholic Limbo, although I understand that the last Pope shut down Limbo shortly before he died.
(If he holds that closely to his Pentecostal beliefs, incidentally, you ain't gonna get none without convertin' and marryin'.)
Your best option is in between "In the Flesh" and "Waiting for the Worms". ;)
Hint....Pink Floyd's The Wall.
Dammit Bruce, now I have to go listen to some Floyd.
CAUSE IF THEY CATCH YOU IN THE BACKSEAT TRYIN'TA PICK HER LOCKS
THEYRE GONNA SEND YOU BACK TO MOTHER IN A CARDBOARD BOX!
CAUSE IF THEY CATCH YOU IN THE BACKSEAT TRYIN'TA PICK HER LOCKS
THEYRE GONNA SEND YOU BACK TO MOTHER IN A CARDBOARD BOX!
You beter RUN !!!
The singer for the fascist trio on Is There Anybody Out There - The Wall Live 80-81 is so cool.
Are there any... paranoids in the audience tonight? Is there anyone that worries about things?
...Pathetic.
This is for all the WEAK people in the audience! Is there anyone here who's weak?
This is for you, it's called Run Like Hell.
Mari. hes a dick. dead babies all go to the same place we do. the ground.
Most religions make their followers feel chosen in some way. The more who goto hell, no matter how stupid the reason, the more the follower feels special / chosen / blessed.
I have no patience whatsoever with creeds that fill people up with such dangerous and damaging nonsense. Why dangerous and damaging? Because it causes distress to so many people when they most need comfort.
My Granddad went to the grave convinced he was going to hell. Not some Mormen idea of it being just like heaven but without the presence of God....no. Flesh burning, bone melting, demon infested, humiliating and devastating Hell.
Bastards.
Hell? Shooooooot, girl. I already been there! They don't send babies to hell. Lord, lord. I agree with Pink Floyd and zippyt: You better RUN.
Suffer the little children
Yikes...the Pentacostal nonsense aside, let's not corrupt the meaning of the Biblical quote.
In full, it would read:
And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
In this case "suffer" means "allow"...it doesn't have anything to do with "suffering" in the modern sense.
You'd have to reach out to OT:
You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
...or maybe go non-Biblical to...
The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.
...or...
For the sins of your fathers you, though guiltless, must suffer.
...which probably found its way to...
The sins of the father are to be laid upon the children.
The singer for the fascist trio on Is There Anybody Out There - The Wall Live 80-81 is so cool.
Are there any... paranoids in the audience tonight? Is there anyone that worries about things?
...Pathetic.
This is for all the WEAK people in the audience! Is there anyone here who's weak?
This is for you, it's called [COLOR="Red"]Run Like Hell[/COLOR].
We have a winner. :D
Come ONNNN, Bruce, that was too easy. I didn't even need the hint! I don't think you can find a bigger Floyd fan that wasnt alive when floyd was actually around.
But you're not normal. :lol:
But you're not normal. :lol:
'Not normal' as in 'not common place' or 'not run of the mill' but you probably already knew that Ibram.
and Bruce expected you to know that.
I'm just being protective I guess. I dunno why :smack:
How can anyone who subscribes to this belief be a genuine, kind person in the here and now?????
Thoughts, please?
You already know the answer is my thought.
Awwww, thanks skysidhe, its great for us poor younguns to have someone to watch over us!
Heh, I'm not normal by any definition. I quoted that whole bit from ITAOT-TWL from memory. That's pretty sad, no?
TEACHA! Leave those kids alone! All in all, you're just another brick in the wall.
Man, I love Pink Floyd! And I hate organized religion. It wraps around decent people's heads early enough and it just twists them around the axle, and makes them into one more brick to be thrown through the window.
And, yeah, I know about the different meanings of the word "suffer."
I've tried arguing the Bible many times before with fundamentalist's of whatever stripe - JW's, Mormons, born agains, etc., etc. There always comes a point where they get this beleaguered expression on their face which means sanity has just flown out the window and brainwashing is now in effect. Too bad. I can't blame them for how they were raised. But I WASN'T raised that way. Whatcha gonna do?
Why argue it? Except for the mental exercise, I mean. To each his own, live and let live, and all that jazz.
You're not going to convince anyone that their dearest beliefs are wrong, nor are you going to open a closed mind. So why bother?
My mother is a devout Seventh Day Adventist, I gave up listening or attempting logical debate years ago.
I always just say....."ok", then go on about my merry way :devil:
Stormie
Lots of family from that side of the loony fence... you gotta' go.
Their opinions on a woman's "place" is just as bad.
The best I ever came up with was after a 45 minet tirade from a VERRRRRRRRRY country VERRRRRY Penacostal preacher co- worker was to look at him and say " Well , what are you going to do when you die , show up at the Pearly gates and say
" GOD , I AM HERE !!!!" ,
and a voice comes back saying
"MY NAME IS BUDDA !!"
Dude did NOT what to say , and we NEVER discussed religion AGAIN !!!
I say this as an
ordained minister:
The world would be a better place if people worried more about their relationship with their version of a
supreme deity than to complain about others'.
Personally, I can't believe in any supreme power that would punish an innocent being in order to spite its parents.
Your mileage may vary.
Man, I love Pink Floyd! And I hate organized religion. It wraps around decent people's heads early enough and it just twists them around the axle, and makes them into one more brick to be thrown through the window.
Why am I unsurprised?
Once, I might have thought as Marichiko does. But as I approach Mari's age, that "old enough to know better" age, I think I find myself getting closer to God. My experience of organized religion is open to quips, as I am a baptized and confirmed Episcopalian -- yeah, the same denomination that just elected its first female Presiding Bishop, to perhaps great excitement in the Anglican Community in other parts of the world.
The quip, in effect: "Well, my son, I don't believe in organized religion either; I'm Episcopalian."
The practice of a religion, even unto taking part in a quality religious retreat like Cursillo, has made a better man of me. There was a time when I heard, and knowing no better believed, antireligious propaganda of the sort repeated in Mari's para above, but that time is long passed, and I dismiss its promulgators as a pack of lying idiots or hidden-agenda types in search of hegemony with themselves as hegemon, and often both. No exceptions -- self-servingness is too often found, and too powerful an impulse.
Now there IS a problem with what I'd call "religious malpractice," an irrational and abusive approach to religion. I've seen a couple of examples of what this produces in the children scorched by it. It's a strange combination of rebellion and a powerful religious urge: they turn pagan and labor at practicing it. They seem motivated to punish their unduly Godstruck parents by rejecting their faith, and then they move heaven and earth to find another one, and preferably one as oppositely constituted as possible. One woman I know went through a druggie period, then several years of the Church of Satan (those guys' newsletters are enough to turn about anyone who isn't a sociopath right off) and is now busy with a bunch of neo-Egyptian pantheon types, who strike me as a major improvement over the CoS. They're colorful, but frankly I don't see the point of it all. However, I think I see the root cause.
I enjoy "The Wall" too. And ain't nobody chucking me through any window, Mari.
Faith and religion rarely have anything to do with each other these days.
Depends on who you look at. The situation in my experience frankly isn't that bad or that desperate, rkzen.
My statement had neither of those qualifiers/values on it.
rk:
If you're going to open your mouth around UG, be prepared to have him put words in it. fyi.
I didn't even get dinner or a show.:sniff:
[I]I've tried arguing the Bible many times before with fundamentalist's of whatever stripe - JW's, Mormons, born agains, etc., etc. There always comes a point where they get this beleaguered expression on their face which means......
Urbane Guerrilla Why am I unsurprised?
Once, I might have thought as Marichiko does. But as I approach Mari's age, that "old enough to know better" age, I think I find myself getting closer to God. My experience of organized religion is open to quips, as I am a baptized and confirmed Episcopalian...
Marichiko and Urbane Guerrilla,
I've seen first hand the damage and the strength that organized religion can bring. I think their strength rises simply from it's number of followers that find a kinship and healing amongst their own, that is, as long as they are all huddled together without opposition from opposing beliefs. Unfortunately Any organized group (the group just happens to be religion in this case) is bound to experience well meant misinterpretation over time and you can't overlook the fact that giving yourself the label "JW's, Mormons, born agains, etc" immediately divides you from BILLIONS of other souls that could potentialy provide the feedback,nurturing, and/or love that we ALL need along the way.
Rather than saying hi I'm a "JW, Mormon, born again, etc" , and immediately receive all the negative and positive impressions from those labels, wouldn't it all work out better if each one of us said:
Hi, I'm a Human and you are too. I have a belief structure on creation and death and so do you. Things in this world scare me and I know they scare you too. etc...
Why am I unsurprised?
Once, I might have thought as Marichiko does. But as I approach Mari's age, that "old enough to know better" age, I think I find myself getting closer to God. My experience of organized religion is open to quips, as I am a baptized and confirmed Episcopalian -- yeah, the same denomination that just elected its first female Presiding Bishop, to perhaps great excitement in the Anglican Community in other parts of the world.
The quip, in effect: "Well, my son, I don't believe in organized religion either; I'm Episcopalian."
The practice of a religion, even unto taking part in a quality religious retreat like Cursillo, has made a better man of me. There was a time when I heard, and knowing no better believed, antireligious propaganda of the sort repeated in Mari's para above, but that time is long passed, and I dismiss its promulgators as a pack of lying idiots or hidden-agenda types in search of hegemony with themselves as hegemon, and often both. No exceptions -- self-servingness is too often found, and too powerful an impulse.
Now there IS a problem with what I'd call "religious malpractice," an irrational and abusive approach to religion. I've seen a couple of examples of what this produces in the children scorched by it. It's a strange combination of rebellion and a powerful religious urge: they turn pagan and labor at practicing it. They seem motivated to punish their unduly Godstruck parents by rejecting their faith, and then they move heaven and earth to find another one, and preferably one as oppositely constituted as possible. One woman I know went through a druggie period, then several years of the Church of Satan (those guys' newsletters are enough to turn about anyone who isn't a sociopath right off) and is now busy with a bunch of neo-Egyptian pantheon types, who strike me as a major improvement over the CoS. They're colorful, but frankly I don't see the point of it all. However, I think I see the root cause.
I enjoy "The Wall" too. And ain't nobody chucking me through any window, Mari.
Hi, I'm a Human and you are too. I have a belief structure on creation and death and so do you. Things in this world scare me and I know they scare you too. etc...
I work with a guy who always says to anyone that mentions religion, "If you believe there exists a power greater than yourself, that's enough".
If you say no, then he'll start preaching that there is, without being specific about a name. Interesting position. :idea:
If you believe there exists a power greater than yourself, that's enough.
That's a tough one, but I'll pick gravity.
It beats love, playful harmonies, and the Republican Party.
What is the difference between a power “greater than yourself” with a name like God verses a power “greater than yourself” with a name like “gravity, love, playful harmonies, and the Republican Party.”?
In my mind, God (by whatever name or description) IS a higher power due to primordial existence, being all knowing, being all seeing, having some part in my creation,etc… I would not consider gravity a force greater than me because it does not embody consciousness, I would consider love a synonym for God or playful harmonies. I would not consider any group (such as the Republican Party) a higher force due to the fact that they are simply a creation or extension of “me” that reflects specific ideas/concepts/thoughts within me.
Anyone have reflections on this ?
The difference is that the latter all provably exist.
Undertoad,
To make sure I understand your response. You're saying all of those things, except God, exist ?
He's seen all of these exept God .
But he ain't seen gravity. ;)
True about gravity. In fact , a lot of things we call a higher power ,including God, are never actually seen. We just perceive the results of there existence acting on the world around us.
There is no gravity. The Earth sucks.
Reply to: Bingo
It all makes sense now.....
:idea: Ding
Reply to: Wolf
You're the official optimist of the forum ?
I often go to the Optometrist, yes.
Provably exist, BS_TM.
If God exists, He would be a higher power than any of the other powers I mentioned. But I'm just answering xoB's guy's question. Gravity is, without a doubt, a higher power than myself. A higher power than all of us. We cannot deny it, we cannot beat it, and it affects every single piece of matter in the universe.
UT,
lol :lol:
I'm so dense sometimes. I thought "provably" in your other reply was a typo for probably...
....and a higher power can be interpreted many ways. Such as.... Gravity is a higher power than me because it moves planets and I can't, but I'm a higher power than gravity because I can feel the depth of a poem and deduce that 2+2=4.....
Enlightened consciousness is more powerful than the most powerful force of nature, because nothing else will allow us to ponder the question of which is more powerful.
....and therefore if she's heavier than a duck , she's a Witch !
.....sorry I'm having a Monty Python moment.
I like your enlightenment observation...
But back to xoB's guy's question -- is the whole concept of "enlightened consciousness" a higher power than me, an individual?
Is the whole concept of "enlightened consciousness" a higher power than me, an individual?
Answering that is tricky. As I’ve seen in this thread these concepts utilize so many words that have many meanings for different people. To add my two cents I’ll define a couple words first:
Individual Me = this is the worldly consciousness that has been shaped by this physical existence. It knows: My name is Bluesky, I’m sad when treated badly, I hurt when I can’t have something I’ve been desiring. It does NOT know I am intrinsically connected to all other life/beings.
True Me (filtered/unfiltered) = a consciousness that shares all knowable knowledge with God and all humans that are or have ever been. This “True Me” is the internal part of the “Individual Me” that observes\witnesses all that physically happens. True Me looking thru the physical form(filtered) would have limits upon it that the True Me that see’s ALL unfiltered does not have.
Higher Power = I won’t attempt to say what power means here or to qualify if the “somethings” being compared, should be compared because they are from separate realms etc… I’ll just say “Higher” is the “something” that is Higher up the consciousness/awareness Ladder.
Now for my next trick I’ll answer the question with a few equations:
God = True Me(unfiltered)
True Me(unfiltered) = All other True Me’s(unfiltered)
True Me(unfiltered) > Enlightened Consciousness
Enlightened Consciousness = True Me(filtered) + Individual Me
True Me(filtered) > Individual Me
Enlightened Consciousness > Individual Me
Wow… I don’t think I’ve ever put all that on paper before. It’s usually just running around within my skull. Looking over it I can’t tell if I’m a genius or in serious need of therapy….
All I know is I could never date anyone who professed a belief in God, period. Unless they were really cute and did not mind having sex for pleasure instead of making babies.
It's amazing what you can put up with.
P62,
Why do you think that a Belief in God means a person is ugly and they don't have sex for pleasure ?
There are plenty of "cute" believers in God. But since this thread started with a description of a rather fundamentalist pentacostal, that's the type I was referring too. I'm very adamant in my atheism, and it is hard for me to have relationships with believers, cute or not. I could never have a relationship with any kind of "fundamentalist," Christian or non. And the wishy-washy "spiritualists" are a pain. My current girlfriend believes in God, but it's mostly a private thing with her.
As for the sex for pleasure, many fundementalists say that's a sin. As is Onanism.
I can understand your belief in characteristics of a God Believer with a Fundamentalist Pentecostal as the backdrop for the statement.
It amazes me that people still call themselves one "type" of religion or the other. I can't think of any religion (or non-religion) that hasn't been bashed with one type of negative stereotype or another. I do feel that the world is full of many people that believe those stereotypes too quickly. For example, using the beginning of this thread concerned with dead babies and your claim to the label "Atheism" . There are people in this world that would call you a baby killer only based on their own personal life experiences and the word Atheist. I’m sure there are many other characteristics that people apply to “atheist” but they don’t apply to you specifically. Is one of the tenets of atheism to treat people kindly? , And wouldn’t kindness include not assuming a person contains all the negative qualities of a given group they participate in? This is all just food for thought.
Irregardless… Ugliness is only an opinion that changes from person to person; it’s not possible to NOT have pleasure while having sex, and masturbation is probably performed by more fundamentalist’s than not.
My brother has some weird, post-Catholic (my mother's special brand) issues with sex that make me think he does not enjoy it. One of his ex-girlfriends told me that, after many days of not having sex with her, she asked him why and he said "I don't want to taint you with my sin." Now talk about baggage!
And not only can atheists (I don't capitalize the a) be nice, I think they have an imperative to be so. No God, no excuses. No afterlife, no infinite temporal framework in which to make amends.
Your brother may be feeling the guilt and "sin" because he does enjoy it.
He obviously believes somewhere inside that he should not be having sex. If that is what he believes he would not be having Sex unless something stronger than his belief interceded. That something stronger could be pleasure.
My attitude to the whole 'god' thing is, there may be and there may not be, but i dont care either way. If you believe in god, thats great for you, dont force your beliefs on me or anyone else. If you dont, thats great, but don't force your non-belief on me or anyone else.
I'm against organized religion, because it gives those on top too much power. The Pope, or the Dalai Lama, or that televangalist dude i hate, could all say whatever they wanted, and their followers would listen. I think of myself as Buddhist, but its a very personal, very individual kinda buddhism (as in i'm alone in doing what i do, not as in it makes ME all antisocial or self-centered or anything). I don't believe in flying bodhisattvas on their clouds, and i dont believe in all the monsters and demons, but i do believe that Siddhartha Gautma had a damn good message. In that respect, really, to me, its more of a philosophy than a religion, because it's all grounded in fact and logic. What many forms of buddhism have become is little different than the way christians have departed a ways from the simple message of christ and added other things to the mix. I go from what the Buddha said, not what him and a buncha other people said.
Many folks think that teaching evolution in public schools is forcing atheism upon their kids. It's weird when you think about it, but history and science probably do more to make God inplausible than anything else.
The only "ist" I can see myself as is a materialist. And if your Gautmanian view of the world is based upon fact and logic, that's probably just as good as atheism.
And Bluesky. I concur, mostly. It's probably the desire rather than the actual pleasure, however. For me, every time after I splooge I ask myself "Why was I so horny only 10 minutes ago, and now all I want is a sandwich?"
...And Bluesky. I concur, mostly. It's probably the desire rather than the actual pleasure, however. For me, every time after I splooge I ask myself "Why was I so horny only 10 minutes ago, and now all I want is a sandwich?"
...pleasure comes first, then desire. We only feel a desire for those things that bring us pleasure (even if it's a sadistic pleasure). What is Desire ? Desire is an urge to have something that you fear you will never get again, or at least not enough of again. So if you just had it, you know without a doubt that you can get it, at least untill enough time goes by that you start to fear you can't get it again and the desire rises. That's why anything you try "not" to want (sex,food,drugs) you get stronger and stronger desires for the more you tell yourself no...
I wonder if marichicko is taking all our great advice to heart.
My statement had neither of those qualifiers/values on it.
And so? Can I not see the disapproval, the troubled heart, behind the line?
If you're going to open your mouth around UG, be prepared to have him put words in it. fyi.
V, I do not put words in people's mouths. I recently went to work on Mari for putting words in mine. We came to a satisfactory understanding. I don't think you can accurately cite a single example of me putting words in mouths. But
do have a little faith in my ability to read between the lines. Not everyone is entirely forthcoming; sometimes you have to tease things apart a bit, try a conclusion about an underlying motive.
It's weird when you think about it, but history and science probably do more to make God inplausible than anything else.
Until you get around to the science of cosmology. It keeps lapping over into theology, just a little.
The only "ist" I can see myself as is a materialist.
Materialism, extreme materialism anyway, left me dissatisfied quite a long time ago. The real world's important, but the good and the kindly have this habit of believing there's more.
. . . It's probably the desire rather than the actual pleasure, however. For me, every time after I splooge I ask myself "Why was I so horny only 10 minutes ago, and now all I want is a sandwich?"
That doesn't come up with me. I never have to ask myself why I was so horny ten minutes ago because I know durn well why -- and afterwards, I'm just happy and often dreamy if circumstances allow. I take my time about getting that sandwich or a nice omelette, too. I savor the glow, and wait for appetite to return.
Huevos rancheros can be something of an aphrodisiac if you don't spare the hot peppers but still give it peppery depth.
It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and leave no doubt.
Hi firebase. Welcome aboard.
the good and the kindly have this habit of believing there's more.
I just don't think there is "more," and why does there need to be? Can't goodness and kindness be manifestations of our brains' ability to remember, think, and imagine? Materialism does not preclude any acts of kindness or prevent emotions.
What is this "more" of which you speak?
I wonder if marichicko is taking all our great advice to heart.
Heh! I haven't checked in on the board for a few days, and I'm impressed at the discussion my question has inspired.
My father and his family were devout Christians and I was raised in a denomination called the Disciples of Christ or "The First Christians." If I ever was to go back to the Christian Church, it would be as a Disciple of Christ. They're actually pretty cool. There's no special catechism or set of beliefs that you are expected to learn. The Disciples believe that God speaks to each one of us directly just as Jesus did to the first Christians - his disciples. All you do is read the Bible and pray and come to your own understanding of God. They believe that NO ONE can stand between you and God. The minister of the congregation IS the congregation.
I don't get all this stuff about hellfire and damnation and never will. I think there most likely is an "Intelligence of the Universe" for lack of better words. I think this Intelligence is difficult to describe or define, and we each have our own personal understanding of it or lack of understanding.
Its all good, as far as I'm concerned. But I have difficulty with someone who believes that infants go to hell or that sex outside of marriage is fornication which will be punished by an eternity of flame. I feel sorry for people who have been brain washed into believing such things. Its one reason I feel that my current fling is not going to go anywhere. I am very uncomfortable with a person who espouses such beliefs, even though he seems like a decent and kind man in other ways.
We've already clashed a few times on the subject and have both agreed not to bring up the topic anymore. I've tried to reason with him on the matter out of compassion as much as anything. Like Dana's grandfather, he is convinced he's going to hell when he dies. Too bad.
It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and leave no doubt.
Chicken. :p
Welcome to the Cellar.:D
Like Dana's grandfather, he is convinced he's going to hell when he dies. Too bad.
And if he's indeed a good and decent man, his soul's in for a heck of a shock, no? Wonder how many days of those "...been there ten thousand years..." it'd take him to get over it?
Firebase -- welcome aboard -- I've seen a fairish few of people around here who voluntarily "remove all doubt." Speaking of hell, they catch a lot of it from me -- inasmuch as my doubts are removed. I also try and be encouraging when I see them doing better.
What is this "more" of which you speak?
Well, Pangloss, I guess you're a very devout materialist if you have to ask that one. It's also a very hard question for those with any touch of mysticism in their mental makeup to make any answer to that would persuade the skeptic. I would make a very poor mystic, myself -- just not enough of that in me.
The religious end up talking about faith a lot in response to this kind of question -- which may satisfy the religious but leaves the skeptic either cold or just unmoved. And this is just about the sort of thing I'm going to close this post with, so ain't I unsatisfactory. Thing is, even the most irreligious persons are no strangers to faith -- as a general rule, faith in other persons' integrity.
Science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein was, and proudly, a determinedly rational atheist. He had no reason that convinced him to expect an afterlife, and finding no proof, he wasn't going to. Now as for me, I hope and expect to meet Robert Heinlein in Heaven.
And I like eggs too. A lot. Passionately.
I presented a paper at the recent American Culture/Popular Culture Association Conference here in Atlanta. My session was in architecture, but I noticed they had a whole session on Heinlein; evidently, that guy has struck a chord with many. I'll have to check him out.
Belief, faith, hope...those words just don't apply much to the way I approach reality. That's doesn't mean I don't laugh, or feel content from time to time, I just see no reason to wish for things I have no control over, especially someone else's integrity (been let down too many times). Whatever happens happens. That's why, like Dr. Pangloss said (and hence my cellar name), "It's the best of all possible worlds."
I'm a huge fan... just be warned, if incest is something that really puts you off, he may not be your man.
Well, maybe all those people I saw going to that Heinlein session had "something in common." Whether they were victims or perpetrators of incest, I could not tell; maybe neither.
What is special about Heinlein; in a sentence.
I...
Belief, faith, hope...those words just don't apply much to the way I approach reality. ...."
I wouldn't be too upset at finding Belief, faith, and hope missing from your daily list of experiences. If you've got the Modern, distorted version of those words within your life your probably a walking sack of misery. Feel lucky that your at least finding your own definitions.
Belief.... in ALMOST all cases belief is nothing more than what you've been conditioned to accept as a truth. The conditioning comes from the beliefs of your parents, the beliefs of the religion that you may or may not of had the choice to attend, it comes from the nation you belong to, etc. In short, ANY group that you belong too is pushing some "truth" on you in hopes that you'll accept it and increase their ranks. Belief should be the warmth of understanding that arises when you search inward past your conditioning and all the noise seeking answers.
faith....Many people recognize faith as something your "suppose" to have regardless of any truth of reality that may be proving it wrong. I've received faith in those things that I've found to be completely true within my heart. My insights are proof that gives me faith, I don't try and cultivate faith by crossing my fingers, clicking my heels together, and saying "There's no place like home."
hope...implies something that does not exist, but someday it might. If you have the two items above in the TRUE sense then Hope is never required because you will already have all you need.
:)
If you've got the Modern, distorted version of those words within your life your probably a walking sack of misery.
Well, I'm certainly not that, but I'm incredibly cynical and often stoic.
completely true within my heart.
I see you're a dualist. I'm not a dualist. The only heart I "believe" in is the one that pumps my blood and keeps me alive (for now). "Soul," "heart," "spirit," I don't do those things. And yes, this does lead to my assertion that "free will" does not exist either.
Nonetheless, I'm not a walking sack of misery, much to the chagrin of those who think I should or wish I was because of the way I think. So many assume that I should be miserable when they hear what I say. But I'm not.:neutral:
Pangloss62,
Thanks for your insights.
Just for clarification:
I did not try to imply that you or people with similar views to you are the miserable ones.
Heart was a bad choice of words on my part. I hesitate to equate it to "soul" or "spirit". A better description would be: The part of my existence that knows the deepest truth ,and damned if I know what that is or what to call it, I just know first hand that it does exist.
I would be interested in hearing your response to the truth/un-truth you see in my definitions of belief, faith, and hope.
Well, let me see....hmmm
I just know first hand that it does exist
Just what type of "knowledge" are you talking about here? Is it possible it was/is just a strong feeling; maybe "intuition" would be a good word?
The only objective areas of truth I'm aware of are in science and mathematics; but then again, I'm limited by my commitment to empiricism. I would explain your "knowlege" of what you call "the deepest truth" is/was a particular biochemical moment triggered by certain synapse firings brought on by external sensual stimuli. Otherwise, it could only be "supernatural," and I can't embrace that.
I think intuition is a valid form of conciousness and explains much phenomena that some people think is supernatural like knowing who's on the ringing phone, thinking about someone and then seeing them, etc.
What happens internally when I feel/see/understand/experience (pick a word you like) these moments of insight or correct knowledge? Intuition is not far off. It’s that feeling you get when searching for the answer to a question someone has verbalized. In your head you run thru a list of possible answers, and you can get suggestions from others too. You grade each answer…. That’s pretty close, No that’s not it, maybe, that doesn't sound right etc, but you keep looking for another possible answer. Why keep searching? You keep searching because the light bulb hasn’t come on yet. That moment when you know beyond any doubt that you just received the answer. You feel lighter than air you feel peaceful. If you’ve never experienced that, I don’t know how to explain it to you in a manner that would do it justice. And the knowledge I’m talking about here is not “ oh that’s right, his name was John”. I’m talking about in depth questions that require deep answers.
I have no doubt that there is something chemically going on similar to your explanation. My question then becomes which came first the insight or the chemical reaction? Did the insight cause the chemical change or did the chemical change cause the insight. Do you know of any studies or empirical evidence that sufficiently proves this one way or the other?
My question then becomes which came first the insight or the chemical reaction? Did the insight cause the chemical change or did the chemical change cause the insight. Do you know of any studies or empirical evidence that sufficiently proves this one way or the other?
Whoa. I have to work right now, but I'll get back to ya on this one.
Well, maybe all those people I saw going to that Heinlein session had "something in common." Whether they were victims or perpetrators of incest, I could not tell; maybe neither.
What is special about Heinlein; in a sentence.
You can't really do that with an artist... he was years ahead of his time, great artists today still pay tribute (copy) to him.
The Heinlein thing with "incest" is that he deals with issues that are common to many in his books. Many siblings close in age go through a "curiosity" period with each other and the Oedipus complex is a real thing for many, even if for a very short time... in some of his books he touches on these things.
Problem is that the sickness of the Victorians is still, very much, with us.
Tell him he's a lunatic. Everyone knows that dead babies go in the blender; baptized babies go first.
What is special about Heinlein, in a sentence[?]
A sentence? I think a better, far more complete answer would be to use a whole novel.
I found
Starship Troopers a seminal experience in my early teens, but I think I would recommend the even thicker
Time Enough For Love, his masterwork, as the what's-special. Like most Heinlein prose, it's transparent and reads easily -- we're not dealing in Frank Herbert epigrams here, but a prose style that doesn't look like a style. It's a speedy read.
It's also probably the work that led rkzenrage to put out that incest teaser -- though a subtheme running through this book is how hard a normally-fertile man who lives eight hundred years has to work to avoid incestuous contacts, by his stern standards, with his remote descendants. It's the avoidance of incest that's the theme, not incest.
The story's almost like something Roger Zelazny might have done -- many of his heroes and villains seem very ordinary people on the surface, but underneath they have something so remarkable as to render them well-nigh freakish. Heinlein's transparent prose, though, isn't the Zelazny near-poetry.