Where We Agree
Offline Where We Agree?
In the grand scope of things, agnostics pretending to be atheists and bare knuckle, full contact Christian apologists must agree on something(s). This thread is an attempt to start with aggreement and then work towards our disagreements slowly and eventually. I will be giving answers and assuming intelligence is among the midst.
*We will disagree with methods, means, and measures, but we shall work up to that slowly. For now, agreements.*
A friend of mine who was a Christian marched with an "atheist" to protest the cultic brainwashing of Rev. Moon of the moonies who was to meet with some politicians many years ago. The Christian, and the "atheist" agreed and had a common goal. I would have marched along side that "atheist" as well.
Things we may agree with:
Humanitarian Goals Feeding the poor, helping the sick, homeless, etc.
Science The pursuit of scientific study in order to find out how this world and universe operates.. Of course we may differ on the method, but we both want to scientifically understand. Since science was founded on Christianity according to all the major reference works, this is an obvious aggreement. REMEMBER:
Education. This is extremely important from a Christian perspective, and a secular Platonic perspective as well. This Platonic importance has been infuential in "atheism."
Pollution: We both agree that we are responsible for taking care of the earth we live on. We obviously disagree on this issue in reference to the elements of this subject, but nevertheless, we agree that the earth should not be destroyed by pollution and such.
Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.
There are many other areas of agreement. However, just like science, two scientists can be looking at the exact same date (artifact), however since they have different methods of arriving at their conclusions, so the different will be noted. I should mention that our disagreement on many of these issues STARTS WITH METHOD. Once we understand this and study this issue, we can start to see the differences.
Those who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuckle black eye in the face. However, I am assuming intelligent actually does exist out there. Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements can be realized as well.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Instead of answering, you complete changed the subject on everything I said. You also caused hardcore to be that of modern Fundamentalism lol.
O'Hair was a traditional Atheist or what some call "strong atheist." They are almost extinct do to Post-Modernism.
Now you could either participate according to the conversation at hand or you could not, but don't change the subject, use logical fallacies like (there's so many), ad hominems, equivocation, contradiction, etc.
Good Luck,
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Re:: Again (jewish accent) with the homonyms!
I get my homonyms confused was that a miter or a miter (See:: Uploaded Images)?
* Prov XXI - Every way of a man is right in his own eyes
L i f e g o e s o n w i t h o u t y o u ! R e d l e t t e r s f o r r e d f a c e s ? :¬
:
F i n
You are a fundy. Anyone who uses their god to threaten others by using a third party as a hostage is a fundy. Merely calling you out as a narcissistic clown is not.
Come on Jean, see now you hide in this section to hide from the vile tripe you spewed in the other sections. Unless you are ready to recant your claim that your God allowed the Japanese Tsunami to warn America to find God. Didn't think so fundy.
YOU, in this thread, not me, used the word "hard core" describing people who ARE NOT "hard core". You used that in replace of the term "militant" because you knew you wouldn't be able to get away using it. So "Hard Core" is nothing more than code for "I don't like being offended so I will use code language to demonize the people who challenge me".
You are no different than a Muslim who throws a tantrum or a Jew who calls the atheist an anti Semite merely because we offend your positions.
Now you know as well as I that you don't have a lick of evidence at all for any non material invisible magical super brain, but still think you can paint an elaborate yellow brick road and pull the wool over some people's eyes. That is what this is about. You don't want to prove anything, you want to look big to yourself and to any other minion you might point this out to.
Providing evidence isn't about word games or myths or dead philosophy. Now when you, or any person who holds any god claim can beat everyone else to the patient office and win a Nobel Prize, then you will be on to something. But don't expect me to take anything you say seriously. You are a joke.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Jean - as I’ve said to you before I think as an atheist lack of hope puts me in a better position than you as I no longer look to a future date or time where I’ll be happy or saved but am completely free to enjoy the perfect present moment now lol whereas someone like yourself over burdened by belief and faith hoping that you will live eternally or reach some such salvation or other nirvana must be constantly disappointed because you don’t feel it NOW and therefore factually are much closer to nihilism in reality than myself the product of your view of nihilism who is totally hope(less).
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
now this is the very definition of pearls before swine. you have just described enlightenment as succintly as i've ever seen, and yet you are light years away from the insight.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Ugh, I certainly hope he doesn't. I want as few similarities between him and I as possible.
yeah, you're right. i shouldn't have made that remark because it's an insult to people with asperger's everywhere to be lumped in with jeannie up there. it's not likely anyway, since i've heard people with asperger's are usually of above-average intelligence.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Kermit the Frog (Affectionately known as 'Kermie'):
Kermit the Frog (Affectionately known as 'Kermie'):
To the bad-azz who doesnt have the stones to defend the AiG/ ICR model, consider the following:
F i n
Therefore you admit that your "atheism" is simply caught up in the Post-Modern culture of the absurdity it boasts upon?
The problem with your Post-modern "atheism," is that you haver zero answers regarding anything.
Reality (you have no idea)
Knowledge (you have no idea)
Ethics/Morals (You have no idea)
Aesthetics - beauty (You have no idea)
Thus logically, since "atheism" is an empty vacuum of meaningless, this would consistently include logic, argument, and simple thinking since they are just chemical squirts in the brain. It is a philosophy of raising the hands and giving up, letting absurdity rule.
This is the hypocrisy that I've been talking about Peg. The Post-modern "atheists" are using arguments from the Modernism "atheists" which doesn't apply. Their lifestyle and argument demonstrate Traditional Modernism in their "atheism." but due to Sapient's brainwashing techniques, out of their mouth their Post-modern "atheists."
Look, Just make up your mind already and stop being hypocrital narrow minded fiedists.
Peg, if you want to be a victim of your time go right ahead. The #1 reason Post-modernism came about is simply because secular philosophy could not develop an epistemology of absolutes without God. Thus thus the absurd apathy in light of history
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
No body of knowledge could ever express infinite, eternal and absolute truth.
As I said to you before loss of faith changes nothing as the sciences remain the same and have the same limitations – scientists are aware of this.
Again, loss of faith changes nothing. A good is not a good because God commands us to do it – would it have been good for Abraham to slit his son’s throat?
Scientific history advances through negation the highest form of thinking – mulling over and crossing out by trial and error but it does advance.
As for fiedist hypocrisy I thought it was you who claimed to be a rational Christian but you tell me how you can logically prove God exists?
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
Atheism hasn't changed over human history it is the same thing, a lack of belief or not being convinced that there is a god...period.
We do, we experience it and hide behind no illusions or delusions of god and the so called ultimate reality of god, that does not exist, you seem to lack any knowledge of reality.
Knowledge does not change because we do not believe in a god or gods, knowledge remains the same. With our without a god we understand our reality and the knowledge gained from our experiences/studies etc.
Our ethics/morals do change towards a more humanistic view for the most part (like all there are exceptions much like the religious that spout love and the religious that spout hate only) but our ethics/morals tend to be reflection more or less of the society we live in, but as well from our experiences/studies
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and always has been this is merely an opinion and had nothing to do with god or lack of belief in a god
yet again god or not god logic and arguments that we have stand on their merits and of course logical reasoning, god does not change the equation, something irrational remains irrational. Such as your stance on atheism and all the stuff you add to it is irrational/illogical for something that is simply a lack of belief or not being convinced that there is a god.
Sapient has no influence my atheistic stance on god/gods has I have only known of him for the last 6 years and I have been an atheist for almost 30. My comes from rational/logical thinking, that is it, the fact that you cannot or have not presented a logical or reasonable argument and lack the evidence to back up your claim of a god existing is your problem, stop projecting brainwashing on to sapient has he has not done any of that to anyone. You on the other hand have been brainwashed by religion.
You have never been respectful, just another hypocritical christian.
The "atheism" of Post-modernism which is NOT atheism but agnosticism which says it has a lack of belief is NOT historical "atheism." This denomination of "atheism" is a product of Post-Modernism. O'Hair would have NEVER ever has said the lack of belief. She would have never even heard of this non-sense until the mid 70's.
The 3 men who helped establish Modernism: Freud, Marx, & Nietzche. O'Hair, a product of Modernism. Modernism was not apathetic like today. It still strived for Science, knowledge, meaning, beauty, etc.
The comedy that is constantly happening on this board is where we see Post-modern understanding of the absurdity of agnosticism being atheism now, though with a Modernized approach towards philosophy.
Peg just indicated that we can know through science. lol, that's the "atheism" in Modernism with the original Modernistic definition of "atheism." It is NOT the atheism in Post-modernism which most proclaim in name on here but NOT in deed.
So if you want to have a Post-modern absurd definition for "atheism," then the consistent rational person would then have a Post-modern philosophy attached to their Post-modern definition. Via Post-modernism, NO, you cannot know ANYTHING, via science or anything. We are all accidents in an empty vacuum with no meaning.
Thus the hypocrisy of the ignorant.
Everytime you use logic, you contradict the very Post-modern attempts to establish your "atheism." Everytime!
Thus Pslam 14:1; I Corinthians 1:14 = idiotic fools.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
there is nothing postmodern about "a-theos." "without (a) god." if you wish to superimpose your own conflated definition, fine, but no one shares it with you, so therefore you're talking to yourself, which is what idiots do.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
With language, we must understand the principle of usus loquendi. To define atheist via the Greeks would be known as the etymological fallacy in light of usus loqendi. This would be a fallacy or an F++ in basic thinking on this subject.
Thus I ask, with your Post-modern definition of atheism (lack of belief) where do we agree? Yes, it would seem that Chrisitans have more things in common with the Modernistic atheist verses the Post-modern atheist that virtually everybody on here mixes together like a Long Island Ice Tea.
Via the consistent means of Post-modernism via defiinition and deed, where do we agree?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
only in the world of jean chauvin, where this definition is no longer common currency. in the reality the rest of the world inhabits, this definiition is alive and well.
dropping latin phrases doesn't make a dolt intelligent, sport.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Once again, instead of answering the argument, logical fallacies of ad hominem abusive are thrown to distract. No reply is given since the communist has been exposed of looking of wikipedia notes most likely where it was available. When wiki is no longer available during our course of conversation, Mr. Communist short circuits and instead of responding, throws fallacies.
As mentioned in another thread, you have demonstrated elementary thinking of a 3rd grader in the area of logic, philosophy and basic history. Thus for a fair discourse, I would have to teach you very basic things for you to simply understand let alone respond to anti-thetically.
Since I don't have time to teach 3rd graders who claim to be agnostics but hide under atheism I will have to allow you to study what the communism school system failed to teach you.
Once you are caught up to below intelligence of the American Public School System, we can try again.
Recommendation for you to catch up - Logic, by Clark.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
again Jean you seem to lack proper knowledge on the topic you are talking about, atheism throughout history is the same definition, a lack of belief in gods/deities. Coming from greek Atheos: without god(s). The oldest known school of atheistic belief is from the indian culture from 600 BCE which rejected the notion and concepts of god. 500 BCE the classical greek ideas come into play as well. Now tell me where I defined it as not being convinced or not believing in gods is somehow a new idea? An agnostic idea? I completely reject the idea and concept of god that you have presented and all the concepts and notions of gods presented to date. You have yet to even present any proper evidence for a god.
jean you are somehow one of the most wordiest ignorant person I know.
O'Hair did NOT have that definition. It was George Smith who invented this via his book, A Case Against God." Thus atheism became a victim to the chaos of Post-modernism it created.
Demonstrate to me a book where O'Hair and John Dewey define and adhere to atheism in this way.
Good Luck! The burden switches now to you. Bear it or or get out of the ring before I cause you further intellectual pain.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Again I am telling you historical parts, I did not say anything about O'hare, she could have believed as she wished, she believed there was no god, great for her, historically it is the same, a disbelief in god, that is all that atheism is. The rest that you bring up is more or less philosophical stance in regards to morals or world view, but atheism is not a world view in any way or sense.
Oh as for the intellectual pain? HAHAHAHA you are a joke you couldn't cause me intellectual pain because your ignorance is too great. Dewey for example rejected the notion of god
John Dewey stated the following:
The idea that "God" represents a unification of ideal values that is essentially imaginative in origin when the imagination supervenes in conduct, is attended with verbal difficulties, owing to our frequent use of the word "imagination" to denote fantasy and doubtful reality. But the reality of ideal ends as ideals is vouched for by their undeniable power in action. An idea is not an illusion because imagination is the organ through which it is apprehended (from his book common faith)
which basically rejects the notion that god exists. Which a school of that thought, rejecting the concepts and notions of god had already existed before back in 600 BCE which also if you bother to do any research taught materialism. Now where is this any different than the definition of atheism which I gave you? Which is the lack of belief or rejection of the concept/notion of god.?
O'hair says believed in materialism, and guess what you have yet to prove that there is anything else but a material world. Worse so she still rejected the concept of god, even in her 1962 speech she rejects the religious concepts of god and it's doctrines. Which is what atheism is about. The philosophical discuss aside, that is all it is and she adheres to it. She rejected the concept of god as per the church.
if evidence can be presented then present it. It is not really that hard, can you or can you not provide verifiable, scientific evidence for your god?
All you have to do Jean is present your evidence for your god, if you do that, people can actually believe in your god, not really that hard, well it is when you have zero evidence to back you up.
The discussion was not whether Dewey or O'Hair were atheists dummy lol. The issue was were they Post-Modern atheists according to the definition you and most hold that is a Post-modern definition.
Dewey and O"Hair were atheists yet, but they never said they were agnostics, ever. They are Strong atheists. Weak atheism is due to again Post-modernism.
I asked you to provide proof that their understanding of atheism is of the Post-modern denomination of "weak atheism."
You had the burden of proof to show this. The fact that they were atheists was never the issue and is obvious.
Since you failed to demonstrate that Dewey, and O'Hair had the same understanding of atheism as you do (weak atheism), then you failed and helped demonstrate my point further.
Check Mate!
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Again, where do we agree as a Christian and many on here as a Post-modern atheist? I would like to find a consistent 100% Post-modern atheist that doesn't dip back to Modernism after defining a Post-modern defiinition for their worldview.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Are you saying that postmodern atheism is the current manifestation of the sophist tradition?
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
I don't have to show you anything about dewey or O'hair? then what does it matter, atheism hasn't changed in definition then at all. What has changed over time is philosophy what many people follow, but the actual definition and what almost every atheist I have ever known has declared or shown is that we all reject the notion or concept of god that is it. After that, anything like materialism, or post modernism is in the philosophical field which is not part of the definition of atheism. You play with words but don't understand basically what i am stating to you.
I have not made any claim other than the one claim I made which was atheism is the reject of the notion/concept of god, that is all I did, I do not have any burden of proof to show you anything, since i have not made any claim. You seem a bit confused on burden of proof. I have shown that they rejected the notion of god or concept of god, I do the same, the burden of proof still lies on you to show me that atheism is anything more than that.
I will even go one step further, I have stated in the past that no gods exist at all, because all concepts of god(s)/deities presented so far do not stand up to any scrutiny. Until such actual evidence, verifiable evidence is shown then all concepts of god are invalid. As for strong or weak comes down to opinion or philosophical views, but it doesn't change the definition of atheism at all. You have yet to show that dewey or o'hair had a different definition of atheism that i have presented.
Hey Peg,
Kind of. Sophism while knowing that there was no way to know, purposely took on various positions just to deceive people and mess with people's head. That's not what I'm saying really about Post-modern atheism.
Post-modern atheism declares absurdtiy as king. Logic and reason are subjective since there are no universals. It is Nietzhe's heaven.
So if you want to define atheism like a Post-modern atheist, then you are stuck with the consequences of that definition. You cannot rationally define atheism Post-modernly and then argue like a modernistic atheist.
As can be seen Latin has been defeated in this argument. He says things like, "what does it matter", or "I never made a claim." Then says atheism has never changed though weak verses strong are posed apart due to the era they were victimized in. He is clueless lol
I am not attacking atheism at this point, but giving a historical analysis. For I wish to have a consistent opponent. If Weak Atheist/Post-modern then argue that way. If Strong/Modernistic, then argue that way. Be consistent in definition and action.
This is absolutely not done on this board which means every argument posed has been a refutation to the very Post-modern atheism they hold so dear.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
So Again, simce 99% on here claim the Post-modern definition of atheism, I ask if there are ANY agreements consistently via a Post-modern worldview or lack of worldview as a result to the era it is stuck in. The era it created.
Where do we agree Post-modern weak atheists? Where?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Atheists as partly sophist - you are quite wrong! Our universities are very much dominated by sophistry - psychology and political science, engineering and our business schools are all good examples. The pure sciences are the exception as they carry on the tradition of the atomists who were the scientific empiricists who paved the way for the sophists.
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
Bide your time, yes! good!! Bide your time:
Article a MUST view, the actual , article written (sorry all):
{Peggotty wrote}
{Jeano wrote}
Earned Consequences according to two World Religions:
(Hinduism) Sons of Surya
In Centuries past people had less knowledge available to them as compared to today. One of the Sons of Surya (the Solar deity) is a deity called Shani he is said to give folks the results of one's deeds through one's life through appropriate punishments, during one's life-time. And the anger and hurt you will feel by the betrayal will be with you for a very long time. Hindus often spend part of a Saturday to entreat Hanuman for fear of the 'consequences', of what their misdeeds have earned them.
Excerpts or No a christian passage:
Excerpts
Jo Chandler wrote, in the first third of the article, -- woman blamed and accused of sorcery and ... -- with horrific consequences a 'gang' of 'merciless' inquisitors .. stripped her naked (eye-brow raises) .. slashed her with machetes .. the pictures of others who had missing hands or similarly mutiliated as a result of the proceedings.
As in one person featured (See: Article). Do all the accused of being the cause of a few men's death by 'means of' hexes and sorcery; earn the right to machete inquisitors ? This image is of a woman accused of sorcery after the DEATH of a young man back in 2003:
See: Image
(Edit: UpLoaded Jeanshouseribs(jpg) added)
Timing Out so leave it there.
So if the law that states witchcraft is a fatal punishment by burning is ironically immoral to an "atheist," which is ironic in itself. then of course you would agree that the murder of stabbing babies in the back of the head and sucking their brains out with a vacuum via D& X would be equally immoral and disgusting? Their legs dangle out of the womb while the head stays in the womb for teh stabbing and sucking.
By the means of witches breaking the law, what laws have unborn children broken?
Hope to see you in the next Pro-life rally.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Ever catch re-runs of Millennium an old Television series with FBI Special Agent Emma Hollis (aka Klea Scott). When Hollis started hearing where the radio starts playing the song "Love Hurts". I cannot adequately describe, the song keeps playing, as the Special Agent walks in on a scene of wall to wall blood. Complete with bones saws and meat hooks and fresh partially dismembered 'bits'. In a word: riveting!!
Re:: Another homonym is Nu 79's remarks :sad or just plain sad ?
I don't want no trouble from you Mister!
Nu 79
About Nu 79 -- Forever allow(ing) your freedom to become a launching-pad for self-aggrandizement and fleshliness. Everyone needn't say it, from now on they only need to directly quote you. A swing and a miss!
Jeano:
{danatemporary wrote}
I have to be misreading, Wow, You not only broadbrushed the entire board, but apparently have defeated, to your mind, ALL by your remarks? Truly?! Knee-jerk reaction ? I am assuming you are making a reference to Abortion procedures. Neat try to draw attention and focus away from the Witch proceedings (and lack of) procedures via misdirection. That assumes no one on the board is ProLife ? Is that correct ? Get back to your take on 'Witches', shall we. Whatever advantage you have hoped to gain in your Trollish remarks have fallen to utter shambles. Listen, you acting as you do nobody can agree with, forget the heat isnt off ?!? Listen, The $ 64, 000 dollar question is, exactly 'who' are you disgusted at, again ? Care to say what you are disgusted at ?! Careful how you answer the question, it may have a Pharisaical connotation or twist to it (fair warning). Answer or don't answer (have already).
Helping and compassionate concern for your fellow 'accused' Mr. Humanitarian (See:Image)
(Edit:: Additional UpLoad)
You obviously didn't understand the commentary (of the image). How very sad for you!! Yes It is all disquieting, but that is to be expected, I'd think.
p.p.s. --
THE COURT JESTER
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
Our disagreement starts with your prejudices.
This seems to be an example:
re:: Okay!-This is all I need! The wonderful interplay between threads
Oh, Aaahh, The wonderful interplay between threads
Can't help but wonder what Mr. Jeano (a Novice --double meaning -- User) is doing now-a-days? Being a rude obnoxious insignificant, contemptible, presumptuous, ridiculous little novice. No doubt molesting his stepdaughter.
What just happened ?!?? Oh, But that is how the power of suggestion works, isn't it ?!? By him not being ''allowed'' to defend himself or respond at all. People will begin to believe the worst. He remains silent so, what to make of it ?!??
Verse of the day . . .
1_Corinthians 5-1 :: It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife .. been filled with grief ..
---
Good thing this thread exists to make sure we all remember!!
Being filled with grief
Off-site ::
To the Group . . .
(Hilarious) "Please, sir, I want some more". Yeah!! I'll eat my tofu, on my own, sacrificed to idols whenever I am able, Hilarious!! Second-string preacher reference that will be unfortunately completely lost to time no doubt. (?) Doubt Fault!!
Loveliest
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34587 {http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34587}
Too-Late to Edit, in the other Thread :: How could I misspell it so badly. In the other thread I meant, to one who once called me friend, a bad typeo, the word is "loveliest'' and not the misspelling I typed out of ''lovest'', as I mistakenly did.
Post Script -- In the other thread I meant, to one who once called me friend, I meant to write "loveliest'' and not the misspelling in-I-typed out : ''lovest''. I believe I only padded, a certain someone, on the shoulder one time, only. I certainly never did anything offensive in any-way. Hi and How are you again ?
And What would be crazy ?!??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5zo79Mfves
Dana you tease.
Image Below (~the Double meaning) ::
↑ Hehehohohehe (big smile)
↑ > Within strict bounds. And in life, I have the best tutelage .. & I am pure magic (smile) ; Not to brag but I AM pure magic (old time/ old school tutelage)
Ultimate tutelage
Thoughts more towards 'Mother's Day', it's more over there and not so much of Father's day .. Image the significance of postnatal care: “Eat well, sleep well, nothing is better than sitting the month well.” (吃的好，睡的好，不如月子坐的好。Chī de hǎo, shuì de hǎo, bùrú yuèzi zuò de hǎo.) It's a long road home!! You are so bad . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVfhXfGrX0Y {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVfhXfGrX0Y}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5grsLMvpJWQ {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5grsLMvpJWQ}
坐月子 (zuò yuèzi)
Let it go, they told me
But I just couldn't hear their plea 'Cause nothing going to get me down
'Cause I'm just trying to make
the right mistake. With all, All the possibilities .. just :
The right mistake, the right mistake
I was only trying to make
The right mistake, the right mistake
http://scarletscord.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/673989243d0f250c5ab4ba3cf9971d48.jpeg?w=200Mid-Feb. of 2013 - 6:21pm http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15288?page=68#comment-401451 #3401 http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15288?page=68#comment-401451 and/or http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15288?page=68 Nu 3401 {http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15288?page=68 Nu 3401}
p.s. -- Hehehohohehe. Btw, Haven't they gotten around to pinning a medal on your chest, yet, Beyond ?
dana, i'm begging you, please don't start bumping another thread with endless editing.
It's better than jean returning!
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
DON'T FUCKIN' SAY THAT!!! it's like summoning the motherfuckin' candy man!
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
55555 laugh I don't care one, just does not comment of popular culture references, it just isn't done! No, Must have missed it, I never saw it!! That whole summoning reminds me of the folktale of Bloody Mary. ''A few brave souls even went to Bloody Mary's home in the woods to see if the witch had taken the girls, but she denied any knowledge of the disappearances'' ..''Still, it was noted that her haggard appearance had changed. She looked younger, more attractive. Suspicions of the neighbors were heighten after all this..''!
I was actually more reminded of the the goddess of the jeweled abode, in sacred Hindu writ, but I do not remember where to find the story (as seen in this Cell, in the Unrelated section!)!
==================================================================================
Ref. -- Posted on: June 18th or 19th # 89Any-who
Ephesians 5:28 exhorts , .. husbands to love their wives as their own bodies!
Careful how any of you react to but a single post, in one cell! By accidental serendipity, I kept running into this story though.
0ff-site ::
In the story of the Lost Ring. I am not sure where the kid (bleat) came from, she's pregnant in this one even having a young son, though she was a maiden, as in the following story. You may have thought that illicit sexual experiences, addictive substances, or selfish pursuits would not be the outcome, nor physical harm that someone with emotional problems, could do. As others who deliberately inflict harm on their bodies, a common example is cutting their skin, eating disorders, and the like.
''Once upon a time, the valiant Raja Dushyanta was fishing and hunting in the forest, when he first beheld the radiant Sakuntala, the foster daughter of Kanwa the sage of sages; and thought in his mind perhaps he should prevail upon the maid to some day become his wife. This damsel would have become his wife by a Gandharva marriage, according to the tale, and so he made plans to give to her his ring as pledge. Not thinking if it was the smart thing to do or not. So, He was about to give the young maiden a ring, a gift in a purple bag, as his pledge for her to become his betrothed. So, He bought the ring. Then the Raja went on to wait for her to make preparations, for the necessary confirmations to his mind; so he returned to his own dwelling. Whilst the radiant Sakuntala remained in a hermitage, for modesty sake, thinking of her wedding day, somehow knowing deep down his intent toward the girl. After this the Durvasas another of the sage of sages visited the hermitage of Kanwa, but the thoughts of Sakuntala were fixed upon her wedding, and she heard not the sage approaching. Failing to extended universal courtesies, the Indian sage of sages cursed the young damsel, so that she should be forgotten by the man that loved her. And later the curse was good. But, After-a-while, and time had passed by, he relented, and promised that the curse should be removed as soon as Dushyanta saw the ring, the gatekeepers had kept from her sight all this time. If he were to ever see the ring, then Dushyanta would remember once again. While apart, When the young radiant maiden found that she was with child, she set off for the palace of her espoused; but on her way she bathed in a pure sacred pool, and from a drop of its' pure water, the ring first magically appeared as she bathed but then immediately fell to the bottom of the sacred waters. It immediately had dropped from her finger and was somehow lost beneath the depths of the waters. Departing the sacred waters, she finally reached the Raja, and the ring no longer in his possession, his memory had departed from him, and he would not consider her to be his own or to be his wife; and the young damsel's mother came and had to carry her away to a jungle. And, so there she being tormented day and night with visions of hell, like the hermitage walls, which they were painted quite black, some white, like demons, with horrible faces and great jotting teeth. And, Meanwhile, the Raja went into the jungle and saw a boy Bharata sporting with a young golden fox. The young golden fox, was found at nought nestling a kit, which she gave suck ; and his heart burned towards the dispossessed one ; and presently he beheld the sorrowing Sakutala, and he puzzled if that young one was to be his wife, and that Bharata was his son? And it so happened that a fish was finally caught by a fisherman, a large fish was caught, and the ring of the dispossessed was found in the belly of the fish, and having carried the ring to-the Raja's own dwelling. And once saw Dushyanta the ring, in his (Dushyanta's) mind and in his heart he remembered the beautiful and radiant young Sakuntala, who after retrieving his memory, Dushyanta had Sakuntala, according to the tale, became one; eventually married the girl (afterall). So, He took Sakuntala and Bharata to a far away state, of his own .. ''
( This is a story, interesting elements within it! )
-------
p.s. -- And so I guess I wont quietly quit !! . . it just isn't done!!
Edit :: Topic that came across the radar screen, Edit Uploaded a ''final'' and last pic to this one, K ?
I don't mind Jean comming back, I love putting zoo animals on display. But there does seem to be necroposting here lately. And now that I will hit submit to post this, I am adding to it too, merely curious as to why. I find verbal frey's much more satisfiying than patting each other on the back.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
==================================================================================
Any-who
Ephesians 5:28 exhorts , .. husbands to love their wives as their own bodies!
Careful how any of you react to but a single post, in one cell! By accidental serendipity, I kept running into this story though.
0ff-site ::
In the story of the Lost Ring:
''Once upon a time, the valiant Raja Dushyanta was fishing and hunting in the forest, when he first beheld the radiant Sakuntala, the foster daughter of Kanwa the sage of sages; and thought in his mind perhaps he should prevail upon the maid to some day become his wife. This damsel would have become his wife by a Gandharva marriage, according to the tale, and so he made plans to give to her his ring as pledge. Not thinking if it was the smart thing to do or not. So, He was about to give the young maiden a ring, a gift in a purple bag, as his pledge for her to become his betrothed. So, He bought the ring. Then the Raja went on to wait for her to make preparations, for the necessary confirmations to his mind; so he returned to his own dwelling. Whilst the radiant Sakuntala remained in a hermitage, for modesty sake, thinking of her wedding day, somehow knowing deep down his intent toward the girl. After this the Durvasas another of the sage of sages visited the hermitage of Kanwa, but the thoughts of Sakuntala were fixed upon her wedding, and she heard not the sage approaching. Failing to extended universal courtesies, the Indian sage of sages cursed the young damsel, so that she should be forgotten by the man that loved her. And later the curse was good. But, After-a-while, and time had passed by, he relented, and promised that the curse should be removed as soon as Dushyanta saw the ring, the gatekeepers had kept from her sight all this time. If he were to ever see the ring, then Dushyanta would remember once again. While apart, When the young radiant maiden found that she was with child, she set off for the palace of her espoused; but on her way she bathed in a pure sacred pool, and from a drop of its' pure water, the ring first magically appeared as she bathed but then immediately fell to the bottom of the sacred waters. It immediately had dropped from her finger and was somehow lost beneath the depths of the waters. Departing the sacred waters, she finally reached the Raja, and the ring no longer in his possession, his memory had departed from him, and he would not consider her to be his own or to be his wife; and the young damsel's mother came and had to carry her away to a jungle. And, so there she being tormented day and night with visions of hell, like the hermitage walls, which they were painted quite black, some white, like demons, with horrible faces and great jotting teeth. And, Meanwhile, the Raja went into the jungle and saw a boy Bharata sporting with a young golden fox. The young golden fox, was found at nought nestling a kit, which she gave suck ; and his heart burned towards the dispossessed one ; and presently he beheld the sorrowing Sakutala, and he puzzled if that young one was to be his wife, and that Bharata was his son? And it so happened that a fish was finally caught by a fisherman, a large fish was caught, and the ring of the dispossessed was found in the belly of the fish, and having carried the ring to-the Raja's own dwelling. And once saw Dushyanta the ring, in his (Dushyanta's) mind and in his heart he remembered the beautiful and radiant young Sakuntala, who after retrieving his memory, Dushyanta had Sakuntala, according to the tale, became one; eventually married the girl (afterall). So, He took Sakuntala and Bharata to a far away state, of his own .. ''
( This is a story, interesting elements within it! )
-------
http://i59.tinypic.com/2efuloi_th.jpg
http://tinypic.com/m/ie070l/3
goddammit, i knew it would just be dana necroposting again...