dogmatically_challenged Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Guess who's back!!!!!! This time I want some REAL debate from the Xtians. Oh, don't worry. I won't slam and blam you like I did before. I just now see that there is some real debate ever since I left. I'll tell you why I and others slam the Xtians. They act up and cause trouble, and people are going to give them shit about it. IF the Xtians would knock it off and leave everyone alone, then maybe most of the enlightened half of humanity wouldn't be bashing the Jesus followers at every step. As far as the libural Xtians are concerned, if you all were a bit more vigilant in shutting up the more konservative wings of your organization, then maybe we wouldn't have so many people talking smack about Big Daddy Jesus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It may not mean much to you Venesa, but I support you 110% so long as you are mercelessly unemotional and reasonable. That's the sharpest edge you can have, and it makes you untouchable as far as your Character. Facts and not emotion. ( I'm one to talk. I'll try practice my own advise from now on. hehe) Although I must admit I enjoy your rants....in the Rants Forum. I think I'll read your testimony too. I recomend starting threads of your own on topics that you feel are important. I personaly look foward to reading your posts. -In Reason- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 DC, your age does not show. My god man, I am floored. I thought you were at least 25 and I have got to say that to have your rhetorical ability at any age is astounding, but 16?! Likewise, I think your willingness to be wrong and learn shows a level of maturity that we could all strive for. You will do great things in this world. All right, now don't let any of this go to your head now <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I won't I promise. I lost a few good friends a while back because of such a delusion and it still hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I agree with Kierkegaard that I would rather have one sinner with passion for something, rather then a hundred piously dull plodders, levelling the playing field without regard for the ideas it runs over. I suspect the general lack of passion in the west is explained by our comfortable long lives. Even the poor in the west live more comfortably than royalty of a few hundred years ago. When you're living on the edge, even small issues can be viewed as a threat to your existence. In an age of abundance, only huge issues will stir the soul into action. Even those may not though, because we are so accustomed to a lack of passion that we may not be capable of stirring it up even when it might save our lives. Cerise, I seem to recall you support egalitarianism? Isn't that in opposition to your desire for greater levels of passion in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I suspect the general lack of passion in the west is explained by our comfortable long lives. Even the poor in the west live more comfortably than royalty of a few hundred years ago. When you're living on the edge, even small issues can be viewed as a threat to your existence. In an age of abundance, only huge issues will stir the soul into action. Even those may not though, because we are so accustomed to a lack of passion that we may not be capable of stirring it up even when it might save our lives. Cerise, I seem to recall you support egalitarianism? Isn't that in opposition to your desire for greater levels of passion in the world? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does egalitarianism have to do with passion? I don't understand your point spammy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 What does egalitarianism have to do with passion? I don't understand your point spammy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Humans are lazy by nature and will not usually get worked up unless their needs are unmet or they feel threatened in some way. Egalitarianism has as its goal the quenching of not only actual needs, but perceived needs as well. By reducing these perceived needs the fan that flames passion is also reduced, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Humans are lazy by nature and will not usually get worked up unless their needs are unmet or they feel threatened in some way. Egalitarianism has as its goal the quenching of not only actual needs, but perceived needs as well. By reducing these perceived needs the fan that flames passion is also reduced, no? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. I don't agree that humans are "lazy" by nature. Are birds lazy? Are bears lazy? 2. How does egalitarianism quench actual and perceived needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 1. I don't agree that humans are "lazy" by nature. Are birds lazy? Are bears lazy? If by lazy you mean "not expending effort on that which does not require it", then yes. They are not lazy to the point of death, but I don't know any humans that are lazy in that sense either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I don't agree that humans are "lazy" by nature. Are birds lazy? Are bears lazy? I think there is a tendency in human nature to gravitate to the line of least resistance, to choose the easy way when given choices, to choose the method that will lead to the least resistance, either internal or exterior, real or perceived. Some of that may be attributed to laziness, I think, and perhaps a love for ease and comfort. Even in this thread, there are those who have chosen the route that meets with the least confrontation (resistance) and I'm sure they could say that that route is easier. I'm not so sure about birds and bears because my experience and most of my observation has been with the human animal. ;-) I see Spammy's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I see Spammy's point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I'm glad one of us does at least. I'm still trying to figure out what the point is exactly. Perhaps if what spammy calls "egalitarianism" actually succeeded in wiping out all human need in any circumstance I would certainly agree. But the only place I see all human "needs" being met are in the graveyard, whereneeds are suddenly unimportant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Well I'm glad one of us does at least. I'm still trying to figure out what the point is exactly. Perhaps if what spammy calls "egalitarianism" actually succeeded in wiping out all human need in any circumstance I would certainly agree. But the only place I see all human "needs" being met are in the graveyard, whereneeds are suddenly unimportant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it isn't that important, it just seemed like a conflict to me (and still does), but I'm not claiming to have infallible knowledge, I'm just employing what is common sense to me, which could easily be wrong. I guess I'm kind of lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Well I'm glad one of us does at least. I'm still trying to figure out what the point is exactly. Methinks it was one of Spammy's tangential musings... ...like the closing comments of a pleasant discussion between friends at 2 am as the bar is closing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts