Not all religions have gods, correct? It just seems absurd to me that everyone around the world, no matter how isolated, has beliefs about a supernatural being or spirit that rules over everything.
I live my entire life without thinking about gods or any supernatural force – I just go about my day and focus on my own life. I find it very, very weird that supposedly the majority of people live day-to-day with thoughts about deities. Is it a part of human biology to believe in things like these? Are we genetically programmed to think of these things, or is it entirely cultural? I would assume the latter, but I’m simply surprised at the magnitude of faith around the world.
Hehehe,
I think religion is defined in the belief in a god, so all religions would have gods, no?
and also, religion is often something which groups people together, so it’d be like looking for a taco in a used car parking lot, you’re searching in the wrong catagory… kinda. – You’re looking for something which isn’t part of the group, it’s going to be hard to find.
Oh, and yeah right you live your entire life without thinking about gods or supernatural beings – This is your post isn’t it?
No, you’re just full of crap. 🙂
mmm, schizer porn.
No, religion is not defined as the belief in a god; not all religions have gods.
And I don’t spend MY LIFE worrying or thinking about religion. This is my view of others, and my questions about something I have nothing to do with. Republicanism is not part of my life, I don’t think Republican or do anything Republican, but I can post about it, right?
Yeah… ok.
If one sees what’s directly and obviously in front of them and nothing more, I think one of two conclusions follow naturally:
1. That they don’t see much themselves, but what other people are doing is probably good (organized religion)
2. That there isn’t anything, really, but what’s in front of them (atheism/agnosticism)
This is OK as a sort of survival trait, but I think it’s lame myself. But then when you’re insane like me and find yourself seeing something more in everything, try to put it together and starting inventing possible conclusions, you end up with a sort of individualized religion. I’m ok with it because without this tendency I wouldn’t be half as witty or creative, but it’s also annoying to have a non-standard viewpoint on almost everything.
A religion is defined as:
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
So I suppose not all religions have “Gods”.
As far as religion being natural, I just made up this analogy:
Think about how you eat. Not what you eat, or when you eat, but how. Most people use utensils. The vast majority of people in the U.S use a fork, knife and spoon. In Asia they use chopsticks. I’m sure there may be other utensils they use in other parts of the world. But what is it that drives us to use them? They are practical, but not necessary. Like religion isn’t necessary for life, a fork isn’t needed for spaghetti. But we are inclined to use it because of our environment.
I guess the real question would be if you delivered a baby in the middle of the jungle and raised it there, never feeding it solid food but rather letting it consume it on it’s own, what sort of habits would it develop. There are some “what-ifs” that probably can’t be solved without looking at history and anthropology.
The few case-studies out there point to the use of…drum roll please… FINGERS! O_O 😛
The russians were big into no utensils until peter the great fagged up the motherland and said LETS ALL BE EUROTRASH. also I think if you put a baby in the jungle and never fed it anything it’d probably just die. It’d be hillarious.
My religion doesn’t have gods.
Whassat, then?
Evolution led us in a weird direction. Now we have language and reasoning so we can like, see that we don’t actually have any purpose. I dunno, maybe we need gods and spirituality and stuff to make sense out of life. Ultimately, what is there for us? Nothin’? Let’s just make up some ambiguous stories that leave that purpose thing really open. Who knows.
How goes the music studyin’?
Some people believe that God gives their meaning life – I find this selfish. It’s introverted.
My reason for living is to serve other people. It makes me feel worth something when I make other people happy – in turn, they make me happy. And to me, feeling happy is feeling worth in one’s life.
Studyin’s good; straightforward. No composition asked of me; I’m still doing lower-division classes, so there’s none of that. I’m in two 2-credit classes (and three 5-credit classes as well): one for sight singing and keyboarding, and another for vocal lessons.
As for my own time composing music… I can do nothing but think about what I want to make and nothing really comes to mind right now.
If you define a god I can give you a definitive answer. And for people with nothing better to do, it *is* an everyday thing. Some poor bastard in Cambodia has nothing to occupy his mind during the day except god and religion. Give him a TV and he’ll be thinking about all sorts of other things. Hell, give him a (non-religious) book and he’ll be thinking about other things. But for those who have nothing but a life of manual labour to look forward to, their minds are underfed, and an unstimulated mind will accept anything.
people use religion to explain what can’t be proven/seen and rely on it in hope that it will improve their lives in the long run
either that or they have been corrupted by the catholic church (if they’re catholic XD)
There’s a freaking huge number of people out there that’re codependant. Many on drugs, many on relationships, and then there’s religion. We’re socialized to think that religion as a dependancy is a healthy thing so there’s no imposed guilt on it. Speaking as someone that escaped the calvinist southern baptist church but continues to live in a family that goes to it I have to say there’s a lot of people that very obviously use the church to compensate for various pains. Now why god seems so prevelant around the world I’m not sure… A lack of science makes the counter-intuitive rather intimidating to the unscientific mind so a god is a really fucking good excuse. That’s another thing I learned in church. There’s a lot of christians that because they’re too stupid to understand various aspects of science (I’m not speaking of evolution here) use them correctly or not to mock those that don’t follow their god.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the default mode of humanity is retard. Retards like gods to explain away the complicated. When life gets too complex and everyone’s neurotic and self absorbed god makes a convenient crutch. With those two very base functions of a god it should be easy to see why its so popular.
master internet debater
the super natural is what man creates to explain the unexplainable.
Re: master internet debater
From Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:
RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
Jesus Christ, Jeff…
Dude, you play videogames. Occasional Role Playing ones I beleive, I see Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy on your interest list, I seem to remember when you played an esper on a evil MB ruled by horrible despot. All those things have Gods in them and whilenot REQUIRE some mythological understanding are certainly amplified by said understanding.
You read books, maybe not religious ones but certainly philosophical ones and while philosophy has a tumultous relationship with the big R, both are more less paths of moral and/or spiritual guidance to follow or stray from as the moment dictates.
You claim atheism, a religion that requires enough belief in a god to not believe in one. Because of that little ideosynchracy It’s been said that atheists are among some of the most spiritual people around.
You’re a fan of Mitsuda’s and Uematsu’s music both of which draw on (among other things) an etherial quality at times, not to mention inclusion the old chorale and pipe organ.
You quoted something called the DEVIL’S dictionary.
My point is you obviously don’t live your entire life without thinking about gods or any super natural force and though that is what you say, it mighn’t be what you mean. Which is good, because it sounds really naive. So tighten your argument up lest it be kneecaped by someone you wouldn’t want it kneecapped by, in front of a girl you’re trying to impress. I say this out of some sort of genuine concern.
Also, you shouldn’t judge the religios (spelling intended) so much… It reflects poorly on you and runs the risk of being somewhat hypocritical. Since, I dunno about you but the thing I hate most about some of ‘the devout’ is their insistance about being up in the business of crap that doesn’t apply to them. Accusing Spongebob of being gay… Christians being so insistant on abstinence when their messiah came from a virgin birth… Etc.
Finally, as a special bonus to those who stuck with me beyond the first sentence, all none of you… Let me impart this thought: Despite’s everyone’s insitance on it being a public experience of community, your own spirituality and however you reckon with it is largely personal, private thing, something that only you can do. So you can put in terms known only to you. Just as long as you don’t try to overly explain it to others. Because then you’re going to compromise it, either by replacing words others might not understand, or toughening up /dumbing down things you hold dear to gain public acceptance. I think both Christianity and Buddhism are both good examples of good ideas that got way too perverted by pandering to the masses.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff…
You’re really quick to try and push Jeffrey into the group of people that has religious thoughts, but merely referencing religion is not a religious thought, necessarily. I think Jeffrey is referring to thoughts that are predicated on a belief in some kind of supernatural power, not thoughts that merely reference the idea of religion by virtue of including the word “devil” or whatever.
Wow, out of everything I said, you picked the Devil’s dictionary thing to respond to. As such, not only do you not get my point (AT ALL), how dare you, who would do such a thing, accuse me or anyone, of being ‘quick to push’ someone into any category? Sorry, hypcrisy, intentional or otherwise, my own and other’s … really burns my biscuits.
The Devil’s dictionary inclusion was sort of the capper joke of the list which from the nature of your reply you might have breezed through… Although, interesting side note, Ambrose Bierce mysteriously vanished in Mexico while retracing his past by visiting old civil war sites and while living worked and hung out with the inspiration for Citizen Kane , but I digress. No wait, I don’t… it sort of ties into my point whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the unexplained, the super natural, the phenomal, the interesting is always there. ‘The devil is in the details’ perhaps.
Anyway Jeff said: ‘I live my entire life without thinking about gods or any supernatural force – I just go about my day and focus on my own life.’ Before we get too much further let me note that this post, along with art post from the other day touch upon God and religion. And therefore are thoughts (what kind of thoughts is irrelevant) concerning God. Maybe not every day… but there’s a thought devoted to the pondering of God in two of them.
Moreover:’My reason for living is to serve other people. It makes me feel worth something when I make other people happy – in turn, they make me happy. And to me, feeling happy is feeling worth in one’s life.’ The Golden Mean. The Categorical Impertative. The Crucifixion of Christ. The Eightfold path. All of these in their basest nature without delving into them and fleshing them out are of an altruistic nature… and have inherent code and life philosophy about them. While Christianity throws acceptance by God into heaven on the mix… all of these things promote altruism and can be lived by and pondered and used for guidance. These are Codes beau, may I call you beau? Codes. And codes, beau, while not supernatural can be unnatural… especially codes that promote selflessness. While he may not live every day with ‘thoughts that are predicated on a belief in some kind of supernatural power’ , his thoughts are filtered through his code. That’s another thing… everybody has a code… they might not call it that but it’s a set of parameters and ideals which they ‘live their entire life’ by.
Onto atheism for a brief stopover. If you get to the point of thinking there is no God. You’ve probably checked into things a little. If you don’t believe in them you have read enough to ask yourself if you believe. You’ve thought about it enough thereby taking away the broadest sense of his ‘entire’ life.
Thus, thoughts that ‘merely’ reference the idea of religion are in fact predicated on some sort of belief of somekind of supernaural power and at least the question its existance. If the history wasn’t there, it wouldn’t be there to reference and if you didn’t know enough of them, then you probably wouldn’t reference them would you?
So saying something as broad as: ‘I live my entire life without thinking about gods or any supernatural force – I just go about my day and focus on my own life.’ is like saying,I watch TV and neglect all the advertising broad and subtle. Or more to the point: ‘I walk in the forest everyday and have never seen nor heard of these ‘trees’ you speak of’.
At least to me.
Addendum
P.S. Jeff, if you are including, among your ‘legions of the faithful’ around the world, people like those who write billboards like ‘Adam and Eve/ not Adam and Steve’ or “God hates Spongefags” , Muslim/Palestian overseers who cry for thier followers to joke the Great Satan with their blood while iof they take a turn for a worse head straight to Europe for the best treatment, and the scores of celibate priests from all walks of religion who break those vows in ways ranging from small to ‘goes against everything they would preach’… Then I think you need to reassess whom you have a problem with.
Do you really, truly think these people think about God or the supernatural everyday or putit in account to their actions?
Re: Addendum
Are you saying this because you believe it or because you want to create some kind of artificial separation between evil men and yourself. Anyone can think of god and try to keep away from paths they know or think are wrong. And by the same token anybody can do horrible things at the same time.
I don’t see those people as evil (my interpreation of it anyway… evil’s a broad word)… I also don’t see them as particularly pious or God fearing either.
I said it, because alot of people and things misbranded in the name of faith and God. As it has been for centuries, as it may very well be for centuries to come. Just cause people say they’re doing things in the name of God or Mohammed or whatever, means nothing. Some guy tried to whack Ronald Regan in the name of Jodie Foster, but nobody believed she had anything to do with it because the guy was an unstable fucking wacko. Nobody all of a sudden stopped believing in young ingenue actresses either… Yet here today you all these other unstable wackos attacking cartoon characters or voting for them in God’s name and people blame God wholesale and become atheists (or worse, latter day wiccans) when if Gods walked the earth they would be suing these hateful sons of bitches for defamation of character.
You mentioned the default mode of humanity as retarded… I think that’s unfair since you’re sharing this with whomever will care to look at it over a nigh-instantaneous global communication medium and from some comfy location away from increment weather and timber wolves, no doubt.
How about functionally intelligent and naturally selfish what with the ‘urges'(to learn, to feel, to feed, to breed) and all pervasive, varying degrees of individual greed and laziness instead? Unwieldy to pronounce, I know and nowhere near as pithy as retarded but I’m going somewhere with this… Particularly with the greed and the laziness thing… and the urges.
Anyway you said alot of humanity likes crutches of varying shapes and sizes and I agree with you. I’m going to call them lazy more than greedy. Let’s just call these people mostly followers. They use religion to supress urges and forsake them and maybe rise to middle management.
Now… and my point in the addendum… there’s those who are greedy more than lazy. Where religion is concerned sometimes these people use it not as coping mechanism or interpretive lens but as a tool for power and control so they can get paid, fed and laid in a bed. See Dark Ages Roman Catholic Church til pre sixties catholic church and televangelists , the Taliban and certain schools of Buddhism for reference.
But using religion and therefore God in such a way is like going to Home Depot and instead of getting supplies for purposes of home renovation using said supplies to brutally rape and murder people in your neighborhood and steal their riches. We all know that’s not why there’s home depot… It’s not Home Depot’s original intent for such a thing to happen. It’s there for Home renovation. It was the thought and the designs of the individual for doing it thus and while these people would have probably done it without Home Depot’s help.. cause some people are just like that. I bet Home Depot Get’s bad press. So too with religion. For the record… Home renovation isn’t exactly my thing… but I’ve met some people who have done wonderful things with it… they almost balance out the assholes who buy sledgehammers and fuck up cars.
I just hope that when Jeffrey doesn’t spend a thought on pervasiveness of God and spirituality in the world , he seperates the faithful from the ‘faithful’. I hope we all do eventually. But that eventuality probably requires a personal values system thought upon by each individual. That’d be awhile.
I wrote something I thought was nice, gmail with the google toolbar on this machine ate it. Basically, you’re assuming god isn’t a subjective creation of its follower. Because of this we have no common ground and further discussion is pointless.
When you assume things you make an ass out of you and me. Maybe if there was one god with one follower you could do that easily. But to chalk up the worth and history of religion as some all encompassing cosmic Not-Me when primitive Jeffy first broke the cookie jar… I dunno. I could see where further discussion would be pointless… Just a cookie jar, we can get a new one, but don’t lie Jeffy, it’s bad in God’s eye.
I think the conversation should now progress on to how using the “ass u me” joke was funny in 1980.
It was a joke back then? It does sort of look like a Prince song title now that you syllabalize it.
I was using it as an old adage…
Re: Addendum
Yes, I think they do.
I don’t care what people think or do in their free time; I’m talking about people who believe in deities, period. This wasn’t part of my argument.
Re: Addendum
Really? How unfortunate.
And no it wasn’t… I believe it was part of mine…
the list which from the nature of your reply you might have breezed through
How are any of the other items on the list thoughts predicated on belief in the supernatural? Or are you saying that any thought that references religion is a religious thought? Having not made any value judgments on you or what you said, how is anything that I’ve said here hypocritical?
Thus, thoughts that ‘merely’ reference the idea of religion are in fact predicated on some sort of belief of somekind of supernaural power and at least the question its existance.
Referencing a thing does not constitue belief in the thing. Those are two very separate ideas. I understand you’re saying that unexplainable things happen, and a word that could be used to describe those things is “supernatural,” but that is different that believing in any kind of supernatural force. Case in point, look at that fucking huge blue polka dotted cow outside fucking your mom.
I think you’re misunderstanding Jeffrey’s intial post. Clearly he thinks about religion, god, supernatural forces, etc., otherwise he would have been incapable of making a post that talked about them. What he is saying though, is that he doesn’t have any thoughts that depend on his having a belief in god, supernatural forces, whatever. He’s not even calling the issue something not worth talking about, I don’t see him dismissing anything, he’s just saying that it’s interesting the way different people operate, the way different people choose to interpret stuff.
As far as having a code of ethics by which one lives one’s life… that’s ethics, not religion, not the supernatural. Perhaps to you ethics are spiritual in nature, but ethical systems can and do exist without religion, without depending on an idea of the supernatural. Equating having an ethical system with being religious or spiritual is pretty much ridiculous. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by doing that, trying to force an idea of the spiritual or supernatural into everything, even things as abstract and disconnected as video game music, and frankly it’s a little weird.
Also, regarding your comment below, yeah, I think there are some crazy wackos who think about God every day and do a lot of really screwed up things specifically because they think about God, specifically because of their ideas about God. Implying that they aren’t genuinely spiritual or authentically religious or sincere in their religious beliefs because they disagree with you or have beliefs abhorrant to you is kind of a variation on the no true Scotsman fallacy. No, them’s religious motherfuckers that are fucking some shit up right now, mark my words. Religious as fuck.
Thing 1- It’s a religious thought of a kind. And to answer your question, You said (chidingly I thought) I was awfully quick to try and pigeonhole Jeff and then using the weakest link proceeded to try to pigeonhole me. While it might not be hypocritical to you it is to me… as for how my own bothers me… it usually does so in hindsight.
Leave Mom and Polkaroo out of this… To reference a thing is to have ideas of it in your head and while you might not beleive in the thing, you have beliefs about it.
Skipping the third paragraph. I think we covered that somewhere.
I _am_ a little weird. Nothing wrong with that. So are you , you sado-masochistic jazz fan. Plus I don’t have to force the idea of these things being all pervasive. They are, check out the news sometime. It can exist and not exist for crying out loud. How people deal or don’t deal with them shapes their lives, their ‘ethics’ and their interpretation of the world. Ethics is a branch of philosophy… and philosophy is religion without the ritual. Same shit , different pile, you just don’t have bow in front of one and walk around it three times.
‘No true scotsman’ sounds like something uncles to do nephews and nieces. There are truly crazy mother fuckers in all walks of life… there are bullies in all walks of life, there are assholes in all walks of life. How about we deal with them and rout them from all walks of life instead of closing these walks off because of a bad experience or infinity with a bully, asshole or crazy mother fucker?
While there are crazy motherfuckers… there are also people using religion to preach tolerance of all things… and criminal reform… and living in harmony. We never use these people to forgive the crazy mofos.. Why should we condemn these truly religious people because of the actions of fanatics and monsters?
That would be as facetious as me surmising that all sadomasochistic jazz fans are like you. That’s profiling. And profiling is wrong.
Yeah, profiling is wrong, you stupid Vampire Hunter D fan.
See? See? You look at my icon an assume I’m a VHD fan when am in fact a Amano fan.
I get what you say though. Shit. I meant to do that.
If referencing religion is a religious thought, then the thought “Father Miller at the church sure is a fucking douchebag,” is a religious thought, too. To me, this is ridiculous, and I think in the theater of general discussion and debate in the real world, redefining religious thought in such a way would be considered patently absurd. These aren’t even the kinds of thoughts Jeffrey was talking about, anyway, and he’s made that pretty clear.
To reference a thing is to have ideas of it in your head and while you might not beleive in the thing, you have beliefs about it.
Yes, thank you for reiterating my main point. But having ideas about a thing is not the same as believing in the thing. Your apparent failure to grasp this second idea is so staggeringly complete that I suspect it may be supernatural in nature.
As far as profiling, I never made any generalizations about religious people, and frankly I’m not about to. What I said was that the mother fuckers fucking shit up right now are, by and large, religious mother fuckers. Here I am speaking specifically about the American Christian theo-fascist right and the Islamic theo-fascist right duking it out in the Middle East. Does this mean all religious people are mother fuckers? No, nope, not at all, just because a dog has four legs doesn’t mean all things with four legs are dogs, and you’re trying to make it look like I said something that ridiculous, which I didn’t, so stop.
But you are saying something that ridiculous when you say:
Why should we condemn these truly religious people because of the actions of fanatics and monsters?
Dude! Those fanatics and monsters are truly religious! And nowhere did I condemn religious people as a whole because of the fanatics and monsters! My argument regarding this point has not changed, and since you have simply reiterated your opinion, I will simply refer you to the final paragraph of my original response where I pretty definitively refuted it.
philosophy is religion without the ritual.
No. Wrong. Profoundly, deeply, disturbingly wrong. To effectively show how wrong this is, I need to make a kind of subtle distinction of the sort that you seem to totally misunderstand, which is the distinction between the philosophy of something and philosophy proper. Which is to say, you can accurately say that there is a philosophy of Christianity, or that religious people have been philosophers, but the academic discipline of philosophy, the branch of study concerning itself with logic, metaphysics, linguistics, cognition, and general rigorous, logical, and for lack of a better word scientific exploration of the fundamental nature of the universe, is perhaps diametrically opposed to religion in that religion depends on faith and the supernatural, whereas philosophy (since materialism) rejects those ideas in favor of, well, reason. For more info, go ask the chair of your local college’s philosophy department “Hey, isn’t philosophy basically the same as religion?” and see what they’ve got to say.
Also, you are kind of being a douche, but I’m not sure it’s deliberate. You really seem to not be able to form the kind of logical thoughts necessary to engage in debate like this. For you, definitions of terms like “religious” and what constitutes a religious thought or a religious person seem to be mutable and specific to your own subjective viewpoint. You are basically asserting yourself as the authoritative arbitrator of what is or is not religious, what does or does not constitute religion (philosophy = religion? jesus), but in fact there are pretty objective and standardized definitions of these terms that you are probably better off relying on when you engage in debate. Rather than trying to completely redefine the idea of “religious thought,” you crazy mother fucker you might be better served just saying something like, “But isn’t it interesting that even though you are not necessarily religious, you still think about religion?” and then maybe we would all be drinking tea and laughing about anime instead of
tying you to a horse and driving your ass out of townhaving this lovely debate.Drive my what out of where now? Part 1.
Funny story, I was just about of town before you decided to amass your ‘wits’ and come at me shrieking in one last bid to re-attach your whiny ass which you obviously think I handed to you… You’re talking to the wrong person for that and you’re talking in the wrong way. I feed and subsist on your vitriol and exasperation. But that’s cool. You’re young. You’re learning. At least I hope you’re learning or else we may grow old together…. because here we are.
Now… Taking away most of the swearing you’re doing, let’s pretend we’re not having a pissing contest … and are still in fact having a lively discussion…
Thinking that Father Miller is a douchebag is certainly a religious thought because he’s a priest. And being a priest his douchebaggery (I’m thinking your going with the traditional meaning like the other two stooges) probably manifested in his sermons or in his actions. Now, if it was his actions and they weren’t religious, many, not everyone… is going to go ‘but father Miller is priest’ and they might not think deeper than that… but the gnawing will be there. And if you think it’s ‘patently absurd’ then why are you trying argue on it? Especially since it’s hard for you to grasp and frustrates? Are you you sure you like tea and anime? Cause if you want to drink some orange pekoe and go watch Prince of Tennis I won’t get broken up. I totally understand.
As for my ‘failure to grasp’… I think I grasp what I’m trying to say just fine, you’re the one trying to stun me with your cheapshot bold text. If you have ideas in something, it exists to you, it’s part of you and you believe in it as you have ideas about it or in other words… beliefs… Here’s another thing about ideas… lots of them can be simultaneously right and wrong. This why to me, I’m doing fine, and you’re just not getting it…
Personally, I think when you’re specifying religion and the religious… you’re into far enough into taxonomy that you’re hitting genus… or more pithily; When you’re talking about Gods, you’re talking about dogs. Anyway you’re wrong about the ‘American Christian theo-fascists’ being the ones in Iraq… I think that the Neo-con agenda and I belive they’re zionist. Feel free to jump in and maul me to death if I’m wrong. The Theo-fascists would be the ones wanting to put God in everything, disallowing abortion, vouching for creationism and trying to out Spongebob. And George Bush for all his God talk is a businessman and an oil guy working for oil guys… one of the people using the home depot tools for ill… and coporate consumerism and wheather that could be classified as a religion in America… well that’s another lengthy maddening argument and I don’t want to keep you from your Darjeeling and Season 2 Inu Yasha.
I’ll just concede the fanatic thing to you… because they think are. It doesn’t really matter what you or I think they are. But since I was fiurther from the point than you, you can have it.
Philosophy _used_ to be about all that stuff… But then everything useful from it went away and became math and science and literature, lingusitics… it even became theology. But even if we were to clump them together… they are all methods to explain the workings of the universe… Which is what I meant. maybe not linguistics… but certainly math, science, religion and philosophy. Philosophy in the way I meant it…. is the dried up texts left after everybody took what good there was for all other sciences from them. Cogito Ergo Sum, is cool to ponder on… but I think the cartesian plane and graphs get more plane. Modern Day Philosophy is Ringo Starr which might as well be George Harrison without the Religion. And for the record.. I think depending on the philosopher and his poison of choice (both philosophical stance and booze preference.. ).. that conversation with the department could go myriad ways some of them far more entertaining than our little exchange. Like, dude, if you want to have green tea and watch 1980s Astroboy. Go on ahead.
And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
While you’re all all too happy to call me a douche I’m not being one. I’m also not arguing in the Aristotletian logic method you’d like me to be. Sorry if I don’t Venn Diagram out well. You all find it hard to argue or roll over me and get upset and call me douche. You’re all bright guys and maybe pride yourself on your brightness. So when somebody doesn’t agree or concede going ‘OMFG Shinies!’ Your ego get’s bruised. Says more about you than it does about me, doesn’t it? And what do you mean ‘debate like this’? _I_ started the ‘debate’, fool. _I_ get to set set the terms… If it’s any kind of ‘this’… It’s _my_ this… So instead of chiding me for not playing by your rules… you should play by mine. No wonder you’re all bent out of shape and calling me names.
And finally, re: ‘completely redefin[ing] the idea of “religious thought” ‘. Why not? You’re obviously not too thrilled with how alot of it is going on… the current notion bothers you… whatever you think mine is has you swearing at me, calling me, douche, motherfucker (which… going into your rules of debate, is probably frowned on… luckily we’re going by my rules… but I didn’t swear at you, or Jeff or troudequeue- until right now pardon my French- sangderenard. Some courtesy and common politeness could be extended. But I digress.) so why not come to your own conclusion and throw that in my face instead? But you don’t have to, I don’t really care as long as your conclusion makes you content and maybe forget about what happened here. You can go have a saspirella tea and watch Totally Spies for all I care.
I came here to talk to _Jeff_ because I thought he was misconveying his message and if he shared it or something like it in the outerworld it may cause a ruckus and raucous misunderstanding leading to something not unlike what we all participated in here. He seemed down the other day about people being mean to him and I applied my unique brand of conveyance as I and( as it is now painfully evident) only I can, to inform him as such soasto possibly prevent such a happening. These little side dialogues with you, niceseizure, can I call you nice? and bloodofthefox never had to happen. I don’t know you. You don’t know me. As far as I know… the ‘atw’ in Jeffreyatw does not stand for ‘and the west of his fwiends’. You were exempt from sharing your time with me. So if you didn’t hit reply ( but I can understand why you did. I can bring that out in people, I’m told.) we wouldn’t be here. You would be be having a Long Island Iced tea and halfway through a Miyazaki marathon. Why not live the dream? Walk away, beau. Because I’m right and you’re right. I’m wrong and you’re wrong. And this whole exchange doesn’t mean much at the end of day. So go on you crazy kid, get ‘Spirited Away’… you know ya wanna.
Seriously, on my end. No hard feelings. I didn’t mean to upset you. Now that you’re it means little, I can understand. But the sentiment is there.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
First, as regards politeness, I think I was pretty polite until you accused me of profiling and generalizing, which, as you conceded, I didn’t do.
Thinking that Father Miller is a douchebag is certainly a religious thought because he’s a priest.
This is the fundamental problem, right here, that you are refusing to use conventional definitions for terms. By this logic, the thought “I want to fuck Britney Spears” is a musical thought because she’s a musician, it’s absurd, and I’m arguing against it because it’s absurd.
When I’m talking about forming coherent logical thoughts, I’m not talking about rules of debate, I’m talking about the language we’re speaking and what constitutes a valid expression in that language, I’m talking about definitions, conventional ones, objective ones, and you’re insisting that you don’t need to pay attention to them. OK, then we’re not speaking the same language, then we can’t communicate, you won’t understand my ideas and I won’t understand yours because we’re speaking in totally different terms. These are not rules that you set when you began the conversation, this is just how language works, and you aren’t saying anything. The following sentences, for example:
If you have ideas in something, it exists to you, it’s part of you and you believe in it as you have ideas about it or in other words… beliefs… Here’s another thing about ideas… lots of them can be simultaneously right and wrong.
Totally devoid of meaning to me. Doesn’t parse. Complete nonsense. It appears that you’re maybe saying that thinking about something instantiates an instance of the thing you are thinking about inside of you, but you don’t appear to be using metaphor, you seem to really believe that thinking about a thing conjures it into existence, which is just insane. You also seem to think that ideas can be simultaneously right and wrong. I have no idea what kind of crack you are smoking, exactly, but it makes communicating with you impossible.
Philosophy _used_ to be about all that stuff…
It still is. When did it stop being about all that stuff? I think you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Philosophy in the way I meant it…. is the dried up texts left after everybody took what good there was for all other sciences from them.
Here you are, trying to redefine philosophy to suit the needs of your argument too. But this also seems to contradict your assertion that philosophy is basically the same as religion. Is religion also just the dried up texts left after the looting and pillaging of modern science? Fuck it, I give up. You’ve convinced me of your hopelessness. I’m going to go smoke heroin and watch The OC. Have a nice day.
Smoke up. Smoke lots.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
No that’s no fair. I gave the ‘faggot’ guy more words than that and you’ve been with me the whole way, beau.
You really want to fuck Britney Spears? She’s let herself go. Can you concentrate fully on thinking of the carnality of the act without thinking of a Britney Spears song to do it to… or even cheesy porn music? The thought of giving Britney the business end of your perogative isn’t musical… but it branches out easily into musical thoughts.
That whole other paragraph you talked about. Perspective thing. We have different ones. That is irreconcilable. We still seem to be able to communicate, or understand enough of the other to become pissed off and write some more. You understand enough of what I have to say to not understand it… Or else you’d be backing up one of the late arrivals with: “…yeah!” and a cool icon.
Re: Philosophy. Oh whatever. You must be a devotee of it. I know full well what _I’m_ talking about. You don’t have a clue as to what I’m talking about though. Is that such a bad thing?
Re: philosophy’s dried up texts and religion’s tried up text. Yep there’s some truth to that. I think alot of people think the majority of the 10 commandments are alright excepting the god ones… Be nice to your parents, don’t mow another man’s lawn etc. Good guidelines and if you dilute them down… without observing the sabbath… you more or less have the golden mean. But that’s an example of people finding use of philosophy and religion as they remain… for an example of religion being culled for science I think we have one of those Islamic religions or an Islamic religionschola or something to thank, for Zero…
Finally is the heroin/Oc combo a stab at Mischa Barton? Well played.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Adages are hilarious!
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
correction: I have a horrible grasp of English vocabulary; I uh, meant to say that you misspelled “sarsaparilla”… fucker.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Duly noted… biatch. =P
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
tl;dr
Get the fuck out, faggot.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
What are you, 12? Cause that’s how old I was when we called things we don’t understand ‘gay’.
No, given how fast slang goes back, you’re probably 7. Here’s a hint Timmy, you want people gone, you don’t give them a reason to stay. Picking your tough icon and making swears constitutes as a reason in some circles, especially internet circles.
Seriously… shouldn’t you be making ‘crazy topics’ on GameFAQS or IMDB? I’m sorry I took you away from that.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
You’re just continuing to win hearts and minds, aren’t you?
Get out, faggot.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Aren’t you just a walking contradiction?
Opening up with a liberal style jab at a conservative.
Following through with a conservative style jab at a liberal.
Wanting me to leave but unable to stop talking to me.
Your words, they say go… but actions beckon to me pleadlingly, they say, stay, talk to me awhile.
And is this how you ‘win hearts and minds’? No wonder you’re talking to folks that piss you off on LJ of all places. Maybe when you pick up something better than ‘go away faggot’ after you think I’m tired out you can come for me. Right now you’re just not equipped. I’m beyond you. Fly, you fool.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
lol
This is some of the funniest stuff I’ve read on Jeffrey’s livejournal.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
You realize Jeff hasn’t deleted your posts and banned you yet because you’re providing many people with genuine entertainment, right?
Seriously. You’re like a monkey that dances for us. In this respect, I insist you stick around.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Indeed.
DANCE, MONKEY, DANCE
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Oh Jeff and I go way back. He full well knows who I be and what I do, when he friended me in the first place.
Quite frankly I’m happy we got through the antagonistic phase and found a common ground… See I thought these last minute feces flingings… not you, you’re either being civil or trolling quite badly, either way you’re cool- that I was dealing with monkeys.
So… Now that we’re all understanding one another. Let’s go get a banana split. My treat.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Discarding all the pithy personal anime attacks, fear of bolded text, and obliviousness to common slang, it really boils down to this question:
Do you think that anyone who thinks about religion is religious?
If your answer is yes, you’re a total dumbass and there’s no further reason to argue with you.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
Nah. I think that anyone who thinks about religion is thinking about religion. I would say these thoughts about religion would be religious thoughts… but they don’t make the people who think them particularly religious one way or the other.
P.S. Many of your friends love you and hate me. Thank fuck your LJ doesn’t have an old windmill.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
You can windmill on my cock.
Re: And 2. THE EPIC CONCLUSION.
See? I knew you wanted me.
But sadly, though your music taste is quite nice, we aren’t right for one another and it would only end in heartache and sorrow. I’m too old to go down that road again.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 1)
Dude, you play videogames. Occasional Role Playing ones I beleive, I see Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy on your interest list, I seem to remember when you played an esper on a evil MB ruled by horrible despot. All those things have Gods in them and whilenot REQUIRE some mythological understanding are certainly amplified by said understanding.
I can understand these things and pretend fantasy worlds without believing in them. This is a totally crappy argument.
You read books, maybe not religious ones but certainly philosophical ones and while philosophy has a tumultous relationship with the big R, both are more less paths of moral and/or spiritual guidance to follow or stray from as the moment dictates.
No I don’t. The last really deep book I remember reading is The Stranger by Albert Camus, and that was years ago.
You claim atheism, a religion that requires enough belief in a god to not believe in one. Because of that little ideosynchracy It’s been said that atheists are among some of the most spiritual people around.
This is also total crap. I already covered how I can talk about something that doesn’t exist, or how I can talk about ideas I don’t believe in. I don’t know who told you that atheists are spiritual, but you’re either getting wisdom from some fanatic or you’re looking at the wrong cross-section of godless people.
You’re a fan of Mitsuda’s and Uematsu’s music both of which draw on (among other things) an etherial quality at times, not to mention inclusion the old chorale and pipe organ.
What the fuck? I don’t think their music is “ethereal,” nor do I think pipe organ or chorale is etheral either. It’s just good music. I can listen, or sing, to any of Bach’s chorales (each one religious) without believing any of the content.
You quoted something called the DEVIL’S dictionary.
The name is satire. Look it up. It was originally called the “Cynic’s Word Book,” and called it the “Devil’s Dictionary” because that’s what he thought the general, god-fearing public would view it as.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 1)
Augh! Italics and agression, my two weaknesses. *dies*
Right then. Thanks for responding point by point BTW. =)
I will counter with numbers and barely present reference points.
1)It’s not a crappy argument when we go by :”I live my entire life _without thinking_ about gods or any supernatural force – I just go about my day and focus on my own life. ” Which is what I went by. In playing pretend you are thinking about these concepts and ergo thinking, be it musingly, referential or whatever about religion and the spiritual world . It’s a silly argument… but what you said is a silly thing to say.
2)I tried to read the Myth of Sisyphus once. In French. It’s on my shelf as we speak.
3)Of course you say it’s total crap! You’re an atheist! Maybe ‘spiritual’ isn’t the best word but it requires more devotion to be an atheist than to be a passive Weekly service going member of the church of your choice. For example you feel the need to point to me that you already ‘explained’ about it. It’s very active, they’re aren’t any atheist holidays per se… Except maybe the week-ends. But there’s always religion around the corner sharing stuff with you maybe demanding you explain so more… Plus, although not always the case, you have to lose faith. Nobody likes that.
4)It’s moving Jeff. Schwat I meant. The music moves you. Can you sing without being moved? Maybe after wallowing through it umpteen times… But the first time? I’d bet not… Music and the qualities of it… could be an entire lengthy discussion in and of itself. From your reply I don’t know if you particularly want to have one.
5)Satire. Funny you should mention it. I was being tongue-in-Cheek when I picked the title. You know since you don’t believe in Jesus… enh? ehn?-right. Anyway, I did look up Bierce as I was replying, looked through an online copy of the devil’s dicitonary looking for a counter quote… I must have got sidetracked with that.. Anyway I looked at wikipedia too I knew it was originally published as weekly thing… I might have missed that bit of trivia for the fact that Bierce had history with William Randolph Hearst and mysteriously vanished in Mexico after hanging with Pancho Villa after revisitng the places he fought in during the civil war. Infinitely more interesting IMHO.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 2)
My point is you obviously don’t live your entire life without thinking about gods or any super natural force and though that is what you say, it mighn’t be what you mean. Which is good, because it sounds really naive. So tighten your argument up lest it be kneecaped by someone you wouldn’t want it kneecapped by, in front of a girl you’re trying to impress. I say this out of some sort of genuine concern.
Like I said, I think about others’ ideas all the time. I personally do not believe in them, and I think that the concept is retarded. Are you saying that I have to believe in a concept before I can even THINK about it? Also, believe me when I say that I’m already pissing off a number of people who I respect and who respect me by saying stuff like this. I’m not sugar-coating anything. It’s my journal.
Also, you shouldn’t judge the religios (spelling intended) so much… It reflects poorly on you and runs the risk of being somewhat hypocritical. Since, I dunno about you but the thing I hate most about some of ‘the devout’ is their insistance about being up in the business of crap that doesn’t apply to them. Accusing Spongebob of being gay… Christians being so insistant on abstinence when their messiah came from a virgin birth… Etc.
I have respect for religious people; most of them seem to be able to keep their shit together. I’m talking about my personal opinions here; and like I said, if someone is insulted by that, tough. And there are always critics of things that don’t apply to them. You don’t see movie critics making movies themselves; you don’t see video game reviewers making video games themselves; critics can say whatever they want about ANYTHING without being directly involved with it.
Finally, as a special bonus to those who stuck with me beyond the first sentence, all none of you… Let me impart this thought: Despite’s everyone’s insitance on it being a public experience of community, your own spirituality and however you reckon with it is largely personal, private thing, something that only you can do. So you can put in terms known only to you. Just as long as you don’t try to overly explain it to others. Because then you’re going to compromise it, either by replacing words others might not understand, or toughening up /dumbing down things you hold dear to gain public acceptance. I think both Christianity and Buddhism are both good examples of good ideas that got way too perverted by pandering to the masses.
That’s my problem. I don’t care if anyone else misinterprets what I’m saying; I’m trying to use the English language as well as I can to convey what I’m saying. My own journal, my own thoughts.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 2)
I do what I want, when I want, at all times. It seems to be working out pretty well for me.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 2)
Exchange 1)’I live my entire life _without thinking_ about gods or any supernatural force.’ ‘Like I said, _I think_ about others’ ideas all the time.’
I don’t know what ‘retarded’ argument you were responding to, but I think we’re talking about different things. I think beau, can I call him beau? Anyway he mentioned that you were trying to say you live your life without faith judgements or a religious filter. Say something like that instead. I could care less what your spiritual bent is. I’m more concerned that you don’t get misunderstood. Nobody likes to get misunderstood Jeff… I imagine not even atheists. Not even in the No-Spin Zone.
Exchange 2) I think Harry Knowles is trying to make a movie.. Oh… and while they can say ANYTHING… they are often criticized for being critics. You just did just as much.
Ecchange 3) It’s hard to convey thought… I was pointing out that you might be misconveying… maybe even to yourself… English language can do that. Even in the No Spin zone. I’m sorry. When you get… It’s MY journal… etc. I get serious O’reilly factor or Colbert Report vibes… I get that it’s your journal and your thoughts (and that my mike is a priviledge not a right =P)… I’m just giving you honest feedback.
I believe it says, you like any sort of comment. I take that to heart.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 2)
I meant to say I live my entire life without believing in gods or any supernatural force. Even then, I don’t like to use the word “believe,” because people have different definitions for “disbelief” as well. I just don’t spend my OWN life thinking about what impact my decisions have on any supernatural force, because they DON’T.
Re: Jesus Christ, Jeff… (part 2)
Well of course they don’t. You’re an atheist. =D
And some of these faithful you speak of. While they take the supernatural force into account… I think they still largely think about themselves and how it fucks them up. They could give a shit about the machinations of the all encompassing superphenomena… Might as well be air or gravity.
Jesus Who?
1. Christians aren’t insistent on abstinence. Catholics notoriously have big families. Ministers in almost every other denomination are allowed and in fact encouraged to marry. Only weird subgroups like the Shakers are in favor of abstinence.
2. No one accused Spongebob of being gay, as I recall. They accused a company that ran a movie with him in it of supporting gayness. Read the articles, not the headlines.
3. I’ve heard more than one person say that if you’re not with other people, you can’t be church. And the Bible says “Whenever two or three are gathered in my name,” not “Whenever some random guy sits in his room doing the theologico-intellectual equivalent of masturbating.” If you wanna go into a self-exploratory solipsistic narcissistic frenzy, you go ahead. But I sure wouldn’t call that “religion,” and I’d even be pretty damn hesitant about calling it “faith.”
4. The original post wasn’t insulting in the first place. Soren Kierkegaard pointed out and emphasized the absurdity of Christianity while being an extremely faithful Christian, and a thoroughly brilliant philosopher of religion. I see no disrespect intended, just curiosity and a will to poke people to see what’s going on in their heads.
Re: Jesus Who?
1)Maybe in your neighborhood. And maybe Christian is the wrong broad term… Conservative. But in my neighborhood, there’s a flack about teaching a more comprehensive sex ed program with options outside of abstinence and the people who abstinence only are conservatives and most of the conservatives around here are Chrisitan and catholic. And their beef, of course is sex outside of marriage. And they think kids should abstain from sex until marriage. Not even know about it until it suchandsuch a time and certainly not from teachers.
As for ministers marrying… I wish they’d do that in the Roman Catholic Church… I believe the reason they put the vow of celibacy (a little different than abstinence) is way way way back in the day they had too many people going to the church claiming to be a bastard son of priest demanding alms. I think we’re past that. It would solve alot of the Roman Catholic church’s problems… IMHO.
2)I’d read the articles… but then I’d be reading about people accusing Spongebob of being Gay or the misconception behind it… and anyway… I thought they were going back to a story a few years ago that spoke to a Gay group and they explained how they thought Spongebob was gay… along with other obvious targets like Marcy and Peppermint Patty, Ernie and Bert were also queer role models… along with a few corporate figures like Mister Clean and Captain Morgan.
3)People also say if you drink alone at home you’re an alcholic falling into despair. Some of these selfsame people drink and drive act like asses at parties, get into horrible fistfights, commit adultery etc. Not everyone who drinks in public does this (thank God) so, it would stand that not everybody who drinks alone is a wretched alcoholic falling in too deep. So it would stand that somebody pondering upon their faith and reading spiritual texts on their own isn’t theologically masturbating themselves into a self-exploratory solipsistic narcissistic frenzy. To go beyond the drinking parallel I suspect that the reading of said texts and investogating would prompt discussions with others of a similar faith and temperament if they existed. Thinking for yourself…owning up to your beliefs so they don’t own up to you.. or something like that.
If we want to do christian teachings… let’s skip the bible quotefest and talk about Lent. If you give up something for lent, you can get support from loved ones and maybe have a rap session or two with your clergyman but making it through those 40 days is largely up to you alone and it’s up to you to use your faith and reasoning in harmony to do it. Well that’s if you give up something you really like… and not like vegetables… unless you like them. That’s sort of what I mean by individualizing and coming to terms with your faith. If you want to gather in his name with 2 + people that’s cool. But in the end, within the bounds of religion and arguably without, you’re being judged and tested individually…
4) I don’t know if you’re talking about Jeff’s post or My reply… either way… I didn’t find Jeff’s post insulting… just the way he worded it to be flawed and apt to get him into trouble… which is delightfully ironic because the way I worded my reply got me entagled in all sorts of sidelines. And I didn’t intend for that… I just find how he said it to be funny because whether you charge them with your own belief and superstition or not… religious/spirituality symbolism is almost all pervasive. I know what’s not what he meant and that was why I endeavored to point it out. And when I put JC in my original reply, I was sort of addressing that fact… Alot of people who don’t neccesarilly believe in the lord, still use his name in vain. It was admittedly unsuccessful… Maybe.
Anyway. I tried to reply with the same wish for genuine discussion I believe you showed. I hope it worked out that way. Yours was the most pleasant bit of discussion overall I had with this thing. Thank you.
Re: Jesus Who?
1. No. Not in my neighborhood. There’s a big, huge difference between “abstinence” and “no sex before marriage.” The celibacy laws came about because the laws of primogeniture were taking land away from the Church when priests were having children. You’re using terms in a very fast-and-loose way and need to tighten up your definitions–terms like “conservative” can mean practically anything.
2. They weren’t. Assume nothing from headlines; they are often completely wrong and have nothing to do with the article.
3. Oh WOW, you mean Christians are hypocrites like everyone ELSE! Imagine that, I thought they were perfect stainless spotless beings like the angels! Texts are outside influences, or are you really going to try to claim that books don’t count as “explaining overly” to others?
“Bible quotefest”? I paraphrased one line. I happen to come from a school in which actual pieces of evidence make better arguments than broad sweeping meaningless generalizations.
Also, the Christian faith isn’t based on adiaphora customs such as going without something for Lent. It’s based on the Bibllical texts–which are “Christian teachings.”
Judgment cannot be done individually in any true sense: even if there is only one person involved, there is still a subject and an object of the judgment.
Re: Jesus Who?
1)I’m a fast and loose kind of guy. I think you might be playing coy with me… while you’re ‘BE SPECIFIC! B.E. SPECIFIC.’ you seem to know what I’m talking about cause y’know we’re not talking about ‘just about anything’ I think we have parameters.
All I got fom that was you rephrasing some of my arguments for me, namely informing and elaborating the celibacy thing…
And differences in local faith… I think your neighborhood’s clergy views on the whole shebang sounds more progressive in some ways than mine.
2)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/20/sponge.bob.reut/
The Headline:Christians issue gay warning on SpongeBob video
What you alluded:
But at least two Christian activist groups say the innocent cartoon characters are being exploited to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.
“A short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality,” wrote Ed Vitagliano in an article for the American Family Association.
and
what I alluded to:
“Dobson was quoted by the New York Times on Thursday as having singled out the wildly popular SpongeBob during remarks about the video at dinner this week in Washington, D.C.
SpongeBob, who lives in a pineapple under the sea, was “outed” by the U.S. media in 2002 after reports that the TV show and its merchandise are popular with gays. His creator, Stephen Hillenburg, said at the time that though SpongeBob was an oddball, he thought of all the characters in the show as asexual.”
Not only are we both right, the headline is pretty darn accurate when you put what you garnered from it and what I garnered from it. Maybe you’re being a little hard on them.
Put ‘spongebob gay’ in Google… you’ll get alot of stories like this. Don’t do an image search. I didn’t do one, but I think it’s good general advice. ‘Specially if you have Safesearch off.
3)Before you take too much offense… My problem is with hypocrites. In Christianity and in everyone else: regardless of race and creed, solo or in groups, sometimes even myself…
Ultimately, I just didn’t want to start quoting bible back and forth. I paraphrase a quote that contests what you said… and then have you do one back… and before you know it… Levicticus… Hence the ‘quotefest’. For some people, they’re like potato chips.
Alright just take what I said about lent then. Throw the assosciation with christian teaching outif it doesn’t jive witchoo. If you would like some teaching with your lent… jesus in the desert, 40 days, 40 nights, and a devil who wants to tempt him. I originally had him leading into I said about lent.. but again, quotefest….
‘Even if there is only one person involved, there is still a subject and an object of the judgment.’
Judge/Subject:Wo/Man
Object: His/Her deeds.
“in any true sense…” That’s shaky as there’s probably alot of ‘true sense’s out there… some of them could very well be feasible. I think guilty conscience can be feasible in some senses. If you feel the need to confess your sins… haven’t you judged yourself of having commited some? Yes you often goes to god or a priest of the cops for further judgement… but it can all stem from your first judgement of yourself…
Because this is jeffurry’s journal not mine:
Labardine is a douche. That is all.
Sacre Bleu! =o
You really like trotting out those french words, don’t you?
Re: Sacre Bleu! =o
It’s English slang, and in the English dictionary.
So it is.
douche Pronunciation Key (dsh)
n.
1. A stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes.
I’m flattered I’m seen as a cleansing force. But I don’t think he’s saying nice things about your journal, Jeffrey. You should cut his mike.
Re: So it is.
While you’re referencing stuff, use UrbanDictionary.
There seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Seeing that apart from crasser versions of the dictionary.com version. Just about everything can be a douche, I see Bush, Moore, republican, democrats; no, republicans; no, democrats; . Why we could all enter one another as definitions. Let’s not eh?
Anyway, since sangderenard has an amour pour la langue francais. I think I’ll pick le 20.
douché
French word for shower
Je me douché.
(I shower myself)
I like your inclusion of Urbandictionary.com into our discussion. It’s sort of a parallel for religion as exposed to the public.
Here is a website with a good idea… a noble idea. Words by the people for the people… Clear and consise conveyance of ideas. And what to alot of them do? Pervert it for some passive aggressive, insular whining with vague in jokes or try to further a private agenda… Trying to use a greater force accessible to the public to bring shame and rangle in members. That’s not what urban dictionary is for… That’s not what religion is for.
And sangderenard. I’m sorry you think I’m a douche. And I know what kind you mean. Seriously, I just like these conversations and I know my way around an internet argument when I have to. From your argument style, I think you’re used to being the douche and when somebody outdouches you… It can be tough. We’ve all been outdouched though. Or is that douched out? There is a tomorrow. I didn’t mean to get you to the point where you felt that you had to use a swear. Forgive me. Forget me.
And just so we’re all clear , I already know that you think I’m a douche, Jeffrey. And I know what kind of douche he means too. I think it’s a matter of public record, in fact.
Still I felt the need to comment so I did. I think you got the gist of it. And while you say don’t care what people think… You do some of the time and you worry and you feel alone. To that end, I pointed out something that may give you problems and you seemed to concede to it. I had no desire to argue with some of your pals. But you know… they were there. And quite frankly they were being douches. I had to take’em down.
So you see. I’m a douche because I care.
And if you see something you feel the need to comment on, no matter how unfavorable it may be. I hope you all stand up and exercise your god given right as Americans to be douches too.
Re: There seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
This is your comeback?
He’s right. You’re a douche.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Well thank you for assessment. I always like to know how people too retarded and chickenshit to get involved in the actual discussion feel about things at the last possible minute.
Just because the big people yell at one another doesn’t mean the end of the world. Go have a juice and return to napping, I’ll be gone before you wake up and it’ll be all be back to the 5 word replies of net lingo everybody at Jeffreyatw’s journal has come to expect. Cute Icon though.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Yeah. Bigger douche than Jeff, even, and he’s had a lifetime of practice.
Here’s a hint: you’re arguing about religion on the internet.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
This isn’t progressing fast enough. I submit that labrador deen is actually a bloody douche rag.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Does that mean it’s your time? No wonder we’re avoiding me. I wouldn’t wanna talk to me during that time either.
You’re not dispatching these people against me are you? Cause you need some better minions…
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Yes, well, I’m older than Jeff.
Here’s another hint: You’re arguing to a guy who argues religion on the internet.
And another:On a Friday Night.
Now we’ve already established at great lengths that you think I’m a douche. What’s your excuse again?
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Trolling is fun, and my fiancee is unavailable.
Also, your mother has some sort of communicable sexual disease.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Seriously, you call that trolling? No wonder you’re talking to me. Shit, you must be taking notes.
Here’s one to jot down… next time you fuck my Mom,wear a rubber, that disease you got is probably older than you.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Wait, now jebus boy is using curse words? Isn’t it nice that when you confront someone lower than you, you have to sink to their level to fight them? Sound’s like you’re the one being belittled here.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
almost as if he’s being played like a well tuned retard fiddle.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
You obviously have the chops for it and the issues… why not talk to me? Tell me your sign? You’re switching sides like a gemini.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
why not? because you dont.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Dude you’re talking to me cause I talked to you. But that’s beyond the point.
Anyway once again, sorry you think I’m a douchey doucherag McDoucherson. I did not mean to get anyone worked up to swear level… if you’re just tossing douche out there cause I keep talking and it’s fun to say– and it is. That’s cool too.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Well dog my cats! You think I’m a jebusboy? You’re mistaken. I think Jesus the guy is cool but I have way too many issues with his modern marketing… I like to think that if he actually existed he would too. No, I’m just a moody drifter… too spiritual for the l33t atheists. Too atheist for the spiritually awoken.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
I have no idea what the in joke connected to that is, if any. But I love that picture.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
We’re gonna need a bigger boat!
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Jebus boy?
The notion that Ran is hot for Jesus… that made me laugh.
All these replies made for an interesting read, by the way. No, it’s not a stimulating read, by any means. But it is interesting to see the types of minions that float around Skyler these days.
(Hooray for open journals.)
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
Sup, who’s this?
I’d say it’s only not stimulating in that the argument doesn’t progress at all.
Re: There were seventy nine choices. I had to pick.
I am Bahamut Zero/Fischer/Cedric/etc.
JESUS SAVES
BUDDHA RECYCLES