Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Nysha's New Creators for July - posted on 1st Aug 2018 at 9:00 AM
Replies: 455 (Who?), Viewed: 131690 times.
Page 19 of 19
Lab Assistant
#451 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 6:45 PM
Quote:
Oh dear - I better hand my doctorate back. I clearly lack the intelligence to understand anything.

There is a marked difference between intelligence and wisdom - you can look it up for opinions other than myself. Note that in any of my posts, I have never mentioned the word 'intelligence'. The only words I've used are 'wisdom', 'understanding', 'enlightenment' & 'knowledge'. Having a degree is inconsequential. People may be wise without a PhD, and people with a PhD may not be wise.

Quote:
As for why the bible would say it to women only? At the time, women were extremely covered up, to the point where it was practically a Greek version of a burka - which is what Paul's mother wore. Extreme modesty was the style for women, to the point where the only people who wore less were slaves and prostitutes.

It does not matter. The truth remains. Is Miley Cyrus widely respected? Is it slut-shaming to not like the way she acts & dresses, if no, would you really want Miley Cyrus as your/your daughter's role model? It's still the truth that women should dress decently, if you get reprecussions about your reputation, do not say that the Bible didn't warn you.

Quote:
Boys, on the other hand? They were never a problem. Sure, they talked big, but they were cowards when you got them alone.

In my opinion, then those cowardly boys you knew are not real men. Real men should have courage & honour for him to be respected. Maybe your experiences are the exception, but most men do not see 'Leadership' as an actively desirable trait in women. It is a good-to-have trait but most men don't actively seek it out. But many women actively seek men who show leadership & providence skills. This may seem very old-fashioned, almost shameful to admit for the strong, independent woman of today, but the truth is women seek strong men. I have never heard a women say, I wish I could date a weak man with no backbone.

Quote:
Who, exactly, have you been observing? Because they don't resemble the humans I know.

Then the phenomenon in nature is the one we can all observe. In general, male animals are often the sex which initiate courtship. They initiate more. It's almost as if they are 'missing something' (a purer kind of love) so are willing to go through greater lengths to 'get back the missing piece'.. like locking horns or collecting shiny things. While the female frequently looks indifferent to all the hoo-ha/calculating if the male ticks all the boxes. Gay people are an exception to a general truth that males are attracted to females & vice versa.

Quote:
To truth, only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial.

Condemned = Opposed, Trivial = Ridiculed. The truth in the quote still remains.

Quote:
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily..."
"Show kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and the slaves whom your right hands possess."
"The master will never be happy until he is a master. The slave will never be happy until he is a slave."

There is something called modern day slavery, you know. Time changes but truth remains. The last 2 quotes are not from the Bible.

Quote:
"The Syrians before and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord. Therefore will the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush in one day. The ancient, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows; for every one of them is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For wickedness burneth as the fire; it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forests, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. Through the wrath of the Lord is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire; no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand and they shall not be satisfied; they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm"

This is an allegory of the fall of civilization. If you manage to understand this at a higher level, you would have acquired some very powerful knowledge. I've said it before & I'll say it again - when knowledge is power, especially the esoteric type, only the most deserving shall receive it.. because with great power, comes great responsibility.

Quote:
Anyway, the logical part of my brain still wants to curl up and die every time I try to read those kinds of bible verses. They sound like they're trying too hard to sound metaphorical, but only end up sounding literal in a very creepy sense. I've never liked clouded language, so I don't think my brain was ever wired for the bible. I don't mind metaphors as long as they make sense, but the biblical ones don't even try. In my opinion, either say what you mean, or don't say it at all - or at the very least explain what you mean by it. The bible (and most other religious texts) are horrible at this.

Have you ever watched a movie that meant something to you when you were younger? Then when you are older, wiser & have gained more insight & experiences, you come back to exactly the same movie, and now you discover there is another level of meaning to some parts of this movie that you had never realized before. Maybe in another point of life, you watch it again and still you see something else that you did not 'get' before. Does this mean that the movie is contradictory & false? No, the only thing changed are your perception & your experiences. This is why there is the parable of our eyes & the blindness of before. Sometimes the movie does not make sense at first, but after many times of re-watching, the meaning will be slowly understood, and if you are observant enough, you can even be able to spot movie 'Easter eggs' where you hadn't before.

Spotting 'Easter eggs' requires a knowledge greater than the movie itself - for example: spotting a reference on the movie's prequel, or finding Hidden Mickeys in a movie that is not even about Mickey Mouse. Easter eggs are hidden and obscured - some will remain hidden forever. Why do the film makers want to do such a cruel thing to us, teasing us? Why don't they just give us the answer? Hmmm...
Mad Poster
#452 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 8:05 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 13th Feb 2016 at 10:13 PM.
Women should be considered equal to men. We're all humans, and have equal worth. However, religion is one of the main reasons why women are looked down at in many cultures. Even western culture still struggles with it. While I may somewhat agree with you that Miley Cyrus might not be the best role model for kids out there, it's still her choice if she wants to undress and fly around with a wrecking ball between her thighs. It does not make her be worth less than any other woman (or man) on the planet. Besides, she dares do what she wants to do without much regard to what other people might say, and in that way she's far from the worst role model. The fact that you think the way she dresses appear slutty actually says more about your personal view on women than about Miley Cyrus. You come dangerously close to the notion that a man can do anything he wants to a woman who dresses so-called "slutty", and that's going down the wrong road on multiple levels. The fact is, YOU don't have a say in how a woman dresses, and you certainly don't get any rights in treating women differently if she does choose to dress in a way you think is too daring. If that is so, then I want to ask you why it is that women are often either looked down upon or treated as a sex object if they wear a bikini to the beach (particularly if they're considered "hot"), while men can practically parade around topless at all times without anybody raising an eyebrow. Out in nature, it's often the male who must capture the interest of the female. The male is often the one dressing "slutty", while the female looks bland.

"Decent" clothing for women changes all the time, and varies greatly from place to place along with the climate in the area. In some parts of the world, "decent" means you've covered your nipples and privates with tiny pieces of cloth tied together by strings. In other parts of the world, a woman is only thought of as decently clothed if she's wearing a full-body sweat tent with only her eyes showing.

And what is a "real man" in your eyes? To me, a man is someone with male genitals, and/or considers themselves to be a male for some other reason. They can be a wuss, they can be a masculine manly-man, feminine, gay, straight, whatever - but they're still a man. A "real woman" is someone with female genitals and/or considers themselves to be a female for some other reason. They can be feminine, masculine, gay, straight, whatever - but they're still a woman. Then there's those who consider themselves a bit of both - and that's fine, too.

The reason most men and women seek beauty, strength, courage and the like, is that we're convinced these seemingly strong traits somehow makes for stronger genes. It's simply evolution in play, and is true for all animals. But humans are different in that we're not only driven by instincts, so not everyone chooses out of what the majority would consider strong traits.

Quote:
I have never heard a women say, I wish I could date a weak man with no backbone.


And yet, many do. And find they actually do like that man, and that he's a much better choice than the hunk that would leave them as soon as he found a better-looking woman to screw around with, and eventually leave the woman with 3 kids and a faltering economy.

Quote:
There is something called modern day slavery, you know.


Modern slavery still exists, sadly. Often children and women who are forced into work for scraps, because they're terrified of their masters (usually men). If women all over the world were considered to have equal worth of men, I think a lot of this slavery would have been dealth with long ago.

Quote:
...with great power, comes great responsibility.


Thanks, Spidey's uncle, for teaching us that!

Quote:
Have you ever watched a movie that meant something to you when you were younger? Then when you are older, wiser & have gained more insight & experiences, you come back to exactly the same movie, and now you discover there is another level of meaning to some parts of this movie that you had never realized before.


All the time. It's called growing up, and gaining knowledge, and seeing connections where you previously didn't see them. It's one of the reasons why I turned my back to religion. Where I first saw nice stories with moral values, I started seeing the full picture of what the book that belonged to my religion was actually talking about. A merciless allfather who made himself a flock of followrs, got pissed off when they didn't do what he'd planned they would do, then decided to punish his own creation by killing them several times over, and then make them do horrifying sacrifices to satisfy his own greed. And when that wasn't enough, he sacrificed his only son to lift the sins of all humans (even rapists and murderers, mind) to make up for all the bad things he'd been a part of doing.

Easter eggs in movies are deliberately put in to make us wonder. But the difference is that they're not there to reveal a hidden truth about life and the universe. They're just there to make a fun homeage to another movie, hint at a future movie, or to make people wonder why they are there. Even I do that when I write stories. It's a way to perk up interest, and will leave people interested until they've figured out what t means (if they ever do). But a book meant to be a god's word (or at the very least 'inspired by a god') should be in clear text, so that people aren't left to wonder. It shouldn't contradict itself on every other page, and it should have at least a scrap of truth in it. Drawing similarities to easter eggs in movies is about as far out as you can come. If your goal is to give people who are mainly illiterate rules to live by, the very least you can do is to give them the rules in clear text, so that whoever reads them out loud can't make up their own opinions and make it say something completely different.
The Great AntiJen
staff: moderator
#453 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 9:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
There is a marked difference between intelligence and wisdom - you can look it up for opinions other than myself. Note that in any of my posts, I have never mentioned the word 'intelligence'. The only words I've used are 'wisdom', 'understanding', 'enlightenment' & 'knowledge'. Having a degree is inconsequential. People may be wise without a PhD, and people with a PhD may not be wise.

Well, you seem to have missed the sub-text of my message certainly.

tflc is my tumblr with uploads not uploaded here: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/tflc

Polgannon: Who Murdered Blaise Penhaligan?
(3rd ed. neighbourhood now available with corrections). Poll: http://strawpoll.me/6689876

Thread for yakking about making TS2 stuff
Top Secret Researcher
#454 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
It does not matter. The truth remains. Is Miley Cyrus widely respected? Is it slut-shaming to not like the way she acts & dresses, if no, would you really want Miley Cyrus as your/your daughter's role model? It's still the truth that women should dress decently, if you get reprecussions about your reputation, do not say that the Bible didn't warn you.


I wouldn't have a daughter, but I wouldn't mind Miley Cyrus as a role model. She's done some pretty good things, after all. Frankly, there are much worse people than her. There are also plenty of other women who are overtly sexual who are highly respected in their communities.
However, there are a large number of people who don't like the way people dress. They all tend to be highly religious.

But you seem to have missed a lot of the point I was trying to make. That quote was not actually written by a god, or by one of the chosen apostles. In fact, it may very well be a forged document. And yet, you seem to consider that to be truthful and powerful, the same way you consider the rest of the bible. Is it still worth worshiping?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
In my opinion, then those cowardly boys you knew are not real men. Real men should have courage & honour for him to be respected. Maybe your experiences are the exception, but most men do not see 'Leadership' as an actively desirable trait in women. It is a good-to-have trait but most men don't actively seek it out. But many women actively seek men who show leadership & providence skills. This may seem very old-fashioned, almost shameful to admit for the strong, independent woman of today, but the truth is women seek strong men. I have never heard a women say, I wish I could date a weak man with no backbone.


Ah, so you're going No True Scotsman on me. If I point out a counterexample to men being naturally dominant as kids, you say that they're not real men and thus shouldn't count.

The only men who I've seen dislike leadership in women are the very religious, patriarchal types, and I really don't care what those guys think of me. For that matter, they are the ones who claim that women only like leadership, and yet they don't display it: they display authoritarianism. I've actually had quite a few men like how brash I am.

And you're setting up a false dichotomy, as well as a false association. Leadership skills and 'providence' skills are not the only possible signs of strength, and possessing them does not make a man strong. Weakness, on the other hand, is the lack of all strength. If women like something that is not your definition of strength, then that does not mean that they want someone weak. For that matter, if submission can be strength in women, then why is it not strength in men?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
Then the phenomenon in nature is the one we can all observe. In general, male animals are often the sex which initiate courtship. They initiate more. It's almost as if they are 'missing something' (a purer kind of love) so are willing to go through greater lengths to 'get back the missing piece'.. like locking horns or collecting shiny things. While the female frequently looks indifferent to all the hoo-ha/calculating if the male ticks all the boxes. Gay people are an exception to a general truth that males are attracted to females & vice versa.




And the thing is, all of those creatures are polygamous. When you're trying to apply that to a monogamous society, it doesn't work. Men have to be just as picky when choosing their mates, because they're supposed to pick one. Women, on the other hand, are just as likely to initiate sex in an equal-gender society, and much more likely in societies where it's her job to do the initiating. For that matter, women are just as likely as men are to cheat on their partners. And then, in polygamous communities, the women are the ones who organize pretty much all the sex.

So, really, I see none of what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
There is something called modern day slavery, you know. Time changes but truth remains.


Of course slavery exists. That's not the point. It tells slaves to go what they're told by their masters. And yes, this is talking about real slavery, not metaphorical, as you yourself said. The bible does not only say that slavery exists, but it encouraged the practice and told slaves to be happy about it and focus on nothing more than serving their masters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
The last 2 quotes are not from the Bible.


I never said they were from the bible. I just asked for your opinion on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
This is an allegory of the fall of civilization. If you manage to understand this at a higher level, you would have acquired some very powerful knowledge. I've said it before & I'll say it again - when knowledge is power, especially the esoteric type, only the most deserving shall receive it.. because with great power, comes great responsibility.


Since you commented on the fact that the other two weren't from the bible, does this mean that you follow the Book of Mormon?

And are you seriously saying that Spiderman is as powerful and truthful as the bible if you're able to resonate with it that much? Because that really doesn't help your case for following the bible if you can get that type of truth from anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
Have you ever watched a movie that meant something to you when you were younger? Then when you are older, wiser & have gained more insight & experiences, you come back to exactly the same movie, and now you discover there is another level of meaning to some parts of this movie that you had never realized before.


Yeah, and I'm sure that if I watched A Serbian Film, I could find some kernel of truth in it. Like maybe the necrophilia is a metaphor for how screwed you are after death if you didn't make the right preparations. Just because someone can gain meaning from a statement doesn't mean that the statement inherently has value, nor that it's worthy of worship; the mind of the person is what truly made the interpretation. I mean, you quoted Spiderman (the movie, not the character) up there, but I doubt you worship it. Sure, there is some good stuff in the bible, such as Exodus 23:2, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil", because peer pressure is a bad thing. But then, there's so much that contradicts itself.

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (because slaughter is love!)

Matthew 5:22 Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, [...]Matthew 23:17 Ye fools and blind, (Jesus is in danger of hellfire! And so are you, because you're calling us all idiots compared to you.)

This then begs the question: why make something that opaque? According to you, you have to have a deep level of understanding in order to get something out of it. And yet, reading it is apparently the only way to get that level of understanding. You're telling us to look at it in order to get the understanding we need to understand it. How does that make any kind of sense? That's like teaching someone to read a dead language by giving them a book written entirely in that language, when no other resources exist to help them out.

You said earlier: "And nobody ever said that God does not want us to know, he invites people to knock on his door." Sure, we're "invited". But the thing is, you need to know where the door is, and which is the right one. And, of course, the only way to find the door is to ask him yourself, and you can't do that unless you've found the door. But the thing is, there could be a false god behind all the doors but one. The only other possible way to find the real door is to check all of them, isn't it?

But did you do that? You said earlier that you went to church when you were young. That was the door you were familiar with. But was it the right one? You claimed that all religions all through history featured a search for enlightenment when that was clearly false, so you don't seem to have looked through all of them very carefully. You dismissed the Quran verse I posted earlier, yet the message of it was to be kind to everyone (and you apparently don't have problems with slavery, so it couldn't be that part I bolded that made you ignore it). Yet, when I posted one from the bible telling women to cover up and shut up, or the one about slavery, you immediately tried some apologetics, saying that it was a truth that I've never witnessed. You're ignoring good messages because of their source, and trying to find good in the bad. Plus, if you're not Mormon, then it should be concerning that you defended the Nephi passage as something biblical.

If the bible holds truth, no matter how distorted it may be, why not the Quran? Why not any other religion? Did you look at them, really look, to see the truth, or did you just go to the one you were familiar with? Because heading straight for the one you "know" is not the act of someone who wants to know the truth. That's the act of someone going to something familiar, which is usually because people are desperate. But then, that's just conjecture. I don't know you.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Theorist
#455 Old 17th Feb 2016 at 9:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlionrjl
Suddenly, things I was blind to make sense, things that were previously meaningless holds immense meaning. I had a paradigm shift. Just like all astronauts experienced the 'Overview effect' when they saw earth from outerspace https://vimeo.com/55073825, something changed & it was so meaningful & beautiful you that just want everyone else to experience it. I don't mean it in a bad way but you understand why some Christians pity those who are still 'blind'. Now the song amazing grace "I was blind and now I see" have so much more meaning. I do believe though that some religions are 'better'/closer to the truth than others.


Odd as it may seem, this was exactly my experience... when I gave up forcing myself to believe, and accepted atheism as truth. Finally, everything made sense. I quit having to convince myself that there was deeper, mystical, metaphorical meaning in religious texts. I no longer had to twist, bend, and contort my thoughts in order to fit religion into things I knew to be true. The mental acrobatics required to get around the contradictions were tiring, to say the least.

Am I missing something? Because now when I consider old religious text like the Christian bible, the very idea that there's some mystical, metaphorical meaning that only the wisest people can see, just sounds like absolute rubbish to me.
I think religious and non-religious can both agree that the bible was both a book of laws, and a guidebook as to how people should live. After all, these human authors who claim God spoke through them, are conveying God's laws to the unwashed masses, right? So how would it make any sense whatsoever, that God's words, his law, and how he wants people to live, would be in any way mystical or metaphorical? "Here are my laws, interpret them how you see fit!" No, it makes more sense that the bible is literal, and a literal interpretation is what was intended by its original authors. Consider the people of the time, their available knowledge, their customs, their beliefs, their society, the repercussions they would face as punishment for disobedience, their ultra-conservatism; a literal interpretation of the bible makes perfect sense for that time period. People just want to believe so badly, that they come up with stuff like, "oh, you can't interpret the bible literally". Well of course you can't today, because if you do, it comes across as really dated, really silly, and completely contradictory to reality. However, I believe claiming the bible should not be interpreted literally is perverting the intentions of its original authors.

I see the bible as an ancient book of laws and living guidelines, written by a handful of human male elitists in order to keep the unwashed masses in check. As something to be believed in today, to me just seems completely absurd.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be atheist. I'd love to believe my loved ones who passed on exist... at all... somewhere. I just can't, because it's too nuts, and people claiming the bible was not intended to be interpreted literally, that just seems even more nuts.

Resident wet blanket.
Field Researcher
#456 Old 9th Feb 2018 at 9:54 AM
We may not change how people think, so what we can do is make them at least ponder about alternate beliefs. What I do believe is that if you are unable to understand any view other than your own and fail to agree to disagree and throw a tantrum over it, you are what's wrong in the world today.
Page 19 of 19
Back to top