jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (34 posts)

Do I sound like I want to destroy you?

59
haj3396posted 6 years ago
Proverbs Chapter 3

4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
reply report
1. 88
  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  I see we would be discussing this god then.
  
  "I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings." (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)
  
  No I don't fear any invisible psychotic little gods of any religion, fantasy is fantasy, some grown up people know that.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  LOL!
  Still misquoting a mis-interpreted set of documents?!
  Earnest, come on man, really? No...really???
  
  Translate A Russian love poem to Chinese and then Spanish and see if it doesn't end up looking and sounding like a hate letter from an ex mum-in-law.
  
  If that is your case for arguing "god" you have argued in vain.
  Try reading it in Aramaic as it was written or have someone who reads Aramaic read it to you... just a thought...
  
  (ps, did you break out the Bermuda Shorts yet down there?)
  reply report
  88
  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Straight from the "good book" that everyone knows so well.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  favor over whom?
  If I am not supposed to lean on my own understanding, how could I understand what my heart is telling me?
  
  Hopefully divert it.
  reply report
60
Cagsilposted 6 years ago
Living an irrational life, via irrational thinking is dangerous.

So, in your own words- Do I sound like I want to destroy you? Yes.
reply report
1. 59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  if Living an irrational life, via irrational thinking is dangerous, why are you on the theological discussion hub?
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  To clear up the irrationality of the theological discussion you offer about a supposed "god", which is completely and thoroughly without any rationality.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Come now, CAGSIL, even the dullest color had to come from some rationale. Human rationale, in part or whole, is a product of someone greater than a human. Else, humans would be the most superior being. Creator IS everything, which happens to include humans, not excluding yourself. So, a rational person would conclude this:
  
  One cannot control their ultimate life or death, only a series of events between those two points, limited at that as well, but none the less able.
  One cannot create out of "spontaneous nothing", else each individual would be supreme to another, resulting in collective implosion; in universal chaos/destruction... yes?
  reply report
  88
  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  You mean god has a god?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Thank you Cagsil?
  `ello Earnest.
  I do not understand your rhetorical question .. hehe.
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Nice window dressing to cover up failed rationale. Good Job 21 Days! It's so nice to see you are growing as a person. Keep going...you've a long way to go.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Thanks for the "personal" injection, brother.
  I'll just as well ignore it. Seems you gods know how far I have come or not. Thanks.
  
  You know, sidewalk cynics and jugglers are entertaining, but they too must come to a point when they stop shoving condemnation at others who they deem irrational, when they themselves do not supersede the same ration. Since they have to pass the hat and collect from those irrational spectators... Everybody eats, the saying goes... and most are hungrier than they realize.
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Most stuff to support a "creator"? I guess nothing new. Oh well. Enjoy.
  reply report
  59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  I no you did not say,"To clear up the irrationality of the theological discussion you offer about a supposed "god", which is completely and thoroughly without any rationality." You were just give me what for in the other direction, there is a term for you, would someone help me find that term?
  reply report
  88
  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  I can't help you find a derogative term for an active writer who is intelligent and has written 145 hubs.
  
  I may be able to help with a word for those of you who have been here, pounding out religious threads daily, full of trite questions and entrapping titles displaying vanity and piety though!
  Especially the ones with no hubs and a huge presence on one thread, flogging their religious beliefs like bad used car salesmen though.
  reply report
  59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Do I have to wait until next year?
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Need help from someone else. Problem discerning things on your own? What a shame.
  reply report
  59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Your friends hate to tell you the truth, that tell you what kind of friends you have.
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  You wouldn't know anything about the people I know, so down put down the people I know. The fact the above statement ridicules people I know, definitely shows you don't practice what you preach.
  reply report
  59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  What I do know, If they love you they would tell you the truth. I am not put them down, but maybe you need to, and get some more.
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Maybe you shouldn't be so judgmental about other people and live your life, like you're suppose to. The irrationality of religion has you in it's grip and yet you don't see it.
  
  What a shame.
  reply report
  59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  What do judgmental mean? Is this judgmental "The irrationality of religion has you in it's grip and yet you don't see it.
  reply report
  60
  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Yes, that would an assessment of your words/action, not a judgment. Which is MY right to do, regardless of what you might think.
  reply report
  54
  Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Very judgmental, Cag. You just can't.....see....it. Is there an echo in here?
  reply report
  59
  haj3396posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  So as long as I speak to a persons words/action it's ok. Well thank you from now on I will speak only to people words/action.
  reply report
86
secularist10posted 6 years ago
"... lean not unto thine own understanding."

That part certainly sounds like you want to destroy my desire to use my own brain to figure anything out.

I should not use my own understanding. I guess I better stop learning new things and trying to expand my knowledge.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Sec,
  Learning "new things" is absolutely impossible, under present humanistic conditions. Since humans are simple passing information to others they assume is valuable. As I have argued much: every human knows everything they need to. That information was genetically programmed into everyone. So, to learn something new, that "new" must come from an all together unique and different source apart from humans.
  reply report
  86
  secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  "Learning "new things" is absolutely impossible, under present humanistic conditions."
  
  Whoa, you're going to have to unpack that one if you want me to understand it. If you mean there is no "new knowledge" technically, in the sense that it all exists out there in the universe whether humans are aware of it or not, that is correct.
  
  But I am referring to "new knowledge" from an individual person's perspective. As in, an individual bettering himself/ herself by reading, thinking, discussing or experiencing new things.
  
  "to learn something new, that "new" must come from an all together unique and different source apart from humans."
  
  That's technically correct, in the sense of new knowledge that the human race in general was not aware of prior.
  
  But for humans both on an individual and a collective level, "leaning into one's own understanding" (i.e. relying on our own brain) is the only way we have ever learned anything or bettered ourselves, from science to history to mathematics to literature.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Sec,
  I see where you're coming from.
  The idea of "new" is the issue, really. From my ventures over the years, the only triad of the human brain is priori, a priori, posteriori --loosely translated: question, discover/gather, resolve/conclude. These parallels are limited to the human condition. I know this sounds off-the-wall, but am highly inclined to accept humans had/have all necessary information built into their DNA.
  This is where my argument over "new" comes in.
  Since the brain is full (so to speak), humanity must venture outside of the mind to have new knowledge and exercise that knowledge outside of the mind.
  
  *As for unpacking the other, not enough HubSpace*
  But a simple explanation: in present form, with brain-body, humanism cannot exceed itself; the human condition is actually complete. (i know further unpacking required) lol.
  This is also one of the foundations of Platonic Realism
  
  James.
  reply report
  86
  secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Fascinating stuff. What I love most about your explanation is that you had to "lean into your own understanding" to figure all this out. Thereby proving my original point.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  Actually, it isn't my understanding at all.
  This Humanism, I have been apart of or studied, brought such conflicts, that I accepted that there was no place left to go accept outside of my self. Humanism is the power to control only itself, which leads to nothing --literally-- and is an albatross to anyone who leans on it. I nicknamed it The Ism.
  reply report
  86
  secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this
  "Actually, it isn't my understanding at all."
  
  Really? Then how did you say it just now? I'm a bit confused.
  
  You say you "studied" humanism. Then this is indeed your understanding of humanism, as you have studied it, right?
  
  You, Twenty One Days, studied humanism, and now you understand it as X, Y and Z, right? Or am I missing something??
  
  Is this Twenty One Days' brain speaking to me now, or isn't it?
  If it is, then Twenty One Days' brain is speaking with Twenty One Days' understanding of the world, the self and humanism, yes?
  If it is not, then whoever you are, give him back the keys, you charlatan!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  LMAO !
  Brilliantly said. just awesome.
  reply report