But it's contradictory and hypocritical...  that proves my
(selective) interpretation is right about something I cannot possibly
know the scope and breadth of... It is claimed He is all and is the
basis for justice... justice is as justice does.... so it has been
written.....  bleating.....  more bleating.......    I can't believe
my thoughts are so mundane and restricted.....  Get me out of this
hell where people expect me to make sense that I may transcend reason
and bask in His Holiness' abitrary greatness (Jesus let him not smite
me, I BEG of you)......   - Chris Tienne

    Lord, I am not perfect.  That you have made me as such, (or those
jerk off progenitors of ours broke us, however we are to take that) It
is not our fault.  Yet, I need to feel guilty and all of these evill
thoughts surely would overwhelm my puny human mind and render me
bloodthirsty and rape-hungry, and the world would darken under the
cloud of depravity under man's rule, without fear of ethereal
retribution.  Please spank me (and most especially people who are not
me, regardless of their virtue) at every opportunity to keep the flock
together, trembling and alert.  My heart is that of the Lord's Jesus
Christ, and I feel the torture in every last gloriously filmed moment
of our Superhero Martyr's self ordained and well gifted demise.
Morals derive of Him, and anything not loosely translated from His
selected script as interpreted by bigots and warlords, is certain
blaspheme and condemndable to eternal damnation.  I love people (like
my sky-daddy does) and show it in the most perfect way possible (like
sky-daddy!!) so as to purify the world to only one stringent and well
exclusive country club of an existence....  Too bad we couldn't still
burn witches, or better yet, Muslims.  Oh well, the Lord Jesus Christ
shall destroy them....   with wholesome light and conversions!!!!!
I'll pray for you.  Chris Tienne

    I agree with your premise and your illustrations, for the most part. I am frustrated every single day by overwhelmingly ignorant people.  Stupid people annoy me too.  It seems they are everywhere, lying in wait, ready to ambush my most well laid plans and hijack my most serene moments.   For everyone, everywhere, their own world agenda is going to come into conflict with other's and reactions from time to time are going to be less than polished (euphemism).  I personally don't find this to be as repulsive or off-putting as it seems a vast majority of the posters here do.  If you are being honest, you have made the first necessary step towards whatever end you're attempting.  I believe that is what you are doing here.  That I agree with some of the inlying precepts of your portion of the dialogue is the reason I want to add the following, solely my position, but perhaps modifying enough and positionally independent (perhaps?) to achieve a center understanding in this matter.  Perhaps I am just going to end up holding a bullseye in front of me. 

    There certainly is no shortage of the mentally inept.  Evidence of it is right here, within this discussion group.  Once again, this is going to be relative and any theist reading this is probably thinking (somewhat prejudicially) (ironic??) that this entry is to be included amongst them (also the brighter of the lot will be noticing my prejudicial tone; check irony).  There is no doubt that a shorter scope of knowledge, or worse, a disavowment of empirical data, are inferior in respect to or as derived from their converse.  Again this will be relative but if you are to consider the lot tangible, absolute entities just for the sake of the discussion, I think the concensus would be that someone posessed of more information will have more to offer (intrinsically) than someone who (all other attributes being equal) has less.  That will put them in a position where contextual construct and it's afforded debate makes it accurate to describe the former as being superior (of knowledge, i.e. quality, quantity, relative) over the latter and you are correct about that.  But goddamn context, it can be the alpha and the omega, the creator and the destroyer, the shit and the shinola (the ass and the hole in the ground, for anyone who isn't aware of that archaic reference) of all that is well intended.  It now becomes accurate to say that intelligence is not the only consideration of the worth of a living being.  As you've stated basic human rights should be gauranteed to everyone. I think that includes life, free speech, health care, education, equal protection under the law, privacy, social security, food, and shelter.  I do also believe that any of those rights ought to be able to be removed from their holder through due process as legislated by a truly representative congress carried out by an efficient and dilligent executive body, all elected or appointed by an educated populous....  That hope runs head-on into a brick wall; Namely reality.

    Now given the context of reality, ignorant people should eat their young (they most certainly could harbor that instinct).  I would suggest that they be euthanized but it may be useful to keep them around for a while and force them into subjugation to clean up the mess they've created before their kind dies off.  Certainly the empathy of a few enslaved idiot's (now more useful) existence does not outweight the benefits for the collective were this to be the case.  Imagine if we could just convince them of their own futility.  Unfortunately you need to be able to reason and rationalize with someone in order to "convince" them and the ignorant have sworn off any honest attempts at it.  If we can isolate the genetic correlation to willful ignorant behavior we should mandate terminations of such pregnancies.  Vasectomies for the males.  The world benefits when the very seeds of corruption are rendered sterile before they can germinate.

    Now I know that seems a little harsh to some, I can imagine a jaw or two may still lie agape, but I assure you that was necessary.  Although I have a measured distaste for ignorance, my true inclinations are toward tolerance, respect for life, and an equal application of basic rights.  I actually still like people, generally speaking, and can claim with all honesty that I am an optimist.  There are times that just stating my point is not enough.  Sometimes I resort to hyperbole and satire, at times in haste, and most often when I am impassioned by something.  Clearly the above paragraph was not meant to be taken literally.  It is an expression of my angst, my frustration, with the evidently diminished cognizance of the ruling class (and the mentally subjugated).  I am bitter sometimes.  There are plenty of reasons to feel disillusioned.  For one, I've lived in the U.S. through the past seven plus years.  If you are not at least frustrated and saddened by the U.S.'s recent actions (and inactions) please don't procreate.  Turn in your thumbs.  There goes that poetic license again.  Aside: I still agree with many of Dev's defenses of Obama's comments and plenty of the ensuing points.

    My point being this.  Dev, your comments and their intent seem clear to me.  Please correct me on any errors I've made interpreting your remarks.  I don't believe there is going to be much headroom made with any of the more hostile overtones to the entries.  That being said, the entertainment value and the relevance of the points of the entire discussion remains engaging.  Still one of my favorite posters.  Anyone being honest with themselves wil probably recall wanting to strangle someone or wishing there was one less idiot on the road cutting you off in traffic and endangering lives.  Words are powerful.  Expression is a basic human quality and ought not to be unnecessarily restricted.  I know the non-theists here have the capacity... which will bring me to my wrap-up and I believe one of the things I initially intended to convey.  Tough to remember, exactly, I ended up being so long winded, I'm not sure this is as cohesive as I would like it to be.

    The willfully ignorant are an abhorrant bunch as they have the available information to make better choices, they choose to be stupid (and frustrating) and are not deserving of a defense.  There are still those who are stupid, not privileged of vital information, or for whatever reason have a disadvantage in a debate forum.  I must withhold judgement until such a time as they've crossed the line into the former category.  As to those whose condition is neither aquired nor improvable, namely the mentally challenged and the like, a certain level of empathy allows for more tolerant a position than those who fall into either of the other (relatively) under-educated.  You cannot avoid subjectivity.  It is the very nature of our anthropic position within this existence.

    Are you sure that's your final answer?  I see a lot of defense for metaphoric interpretation for christianity and the appreciation of it's art; It's content as an expression of intuitive and emotive understanding if you will allow.  This should align it with, among other things, philisophes and such, and should allow an objective critique to accompany it's subjective interpretation.  I mean, come on, without observable correlations you could not condemn, let's say, Marxism, Islamo-Fascism, Liberal Progressivism, Anarchism, and the like.  Perhaps this is assuming too much.

    I suppose you could just say whatever the hell you want and assert it as a self supporting concept, evidentiary of itself.  I have seen this to be the case often enough.  But the overwhelming theist discourse here tends toward requiring such empirical and precise data from all competing or comparable alternative or correlative positioning.  Actual first hand proof is necessary for the confirmation of facts concerning scientific theory, as requested frequently by theists, as well as citation of communicable reference for drawing opposing conclusions, consistently provided by atheist and antitheist alike.

    When it comes to Christians defending Christian: doctrine, tenet, dogma, devision, inclusion, dilenation of sectarian and individual interpretation, representation and leadership for, factual basis, metaphoric delineation, precision of data, implication, integration with the sciences, integration with the arts, and every other scope not mentioned within this list, the only consideration is the Bible in it's current incarnation.  Every other source of evidence must somehow be made to fit within the text of the single volume of work.  This is the presupposition of "faith" (religious).

    While posessing similitude of most other philisophical works (right down to containing flaws, lacking true infinite or entirely encompassing scope), an acceptance without necessitating a reason other than it is self compulsory, disallows the same conditions of acceptance/rejection as would be applied to contending paridigm and orientation.  This puts at great advantage (truly disadvantage in many relative ways) the Christian philosophy and it's remaining content to be the deciding factor in the subjective application of it's disciple.  This is without regard to observation that would indicate the fallacy of claims therein the Bible.

    While accepting certain contradictory priciples and disciplines in many cases (including certain mathematics to include statistics and calculus, certain fundamental mechanics and physics, certain disciplines of philosophy and divination of reason, anthropological studies, biological and geological evidence etc., either in whole or in part) the assertion usually becomes that they are derivative of the Bible rather than contributive.  A consistency is asserted at the veto of credible dissent.

    The Bible has already claimed your (opposing or contentious) fact, i.e. "Sequential order of the genesis books is consistent and evidenciary of creationist position with scientifically and organically aquired data," "The Noah's Ark story happened as accounted for in the biblical stories, we have as well documented a body of proof of it's and the flood's occurence as skeptics and scholars have evidence for it's (supreme) unlikelihood, or if not (due to our selective observance of empirical evidence), it is a perfect allegory and is no means of discrediting the authors, nor implies an instance of deception or disingenuousness."

    Necessarily it is a permanent commitment to a position chosen before you were ever made available the evidence for consideration.  This would include all evidence aquired after a conversion or true implication of "an article of faith".  Information will be nullified if it suggests contradiction.

    Accounts of a personal adaptation and observance of Christian doctrine do nothing to satisfy this paradox.  At the insistence of selecting the texts further, Christianity has to necessarily nullify it's centrally important infallibility pretext.  Devining infallibile forces with necessarily fallible means is a laughable schism.  That level of arrogance and deviation from reason possibly has something to do with it's proclaimant's ability to assert statements prior to investigation, as they are obviously well aquainted with delusion.

    When one accepts a personal Jesus, they become the God (though somewhat limited to the contents of the bible), or at least it's most important liason.  Now the limitations set forth are only going to be implemented as affected.  This is also true to their interpretation of information and observation.

    You will often see this illustrated within the prayer arguments, as when an account of some prayer being answered and it's statistical implications and it's profoundness are expressed.  Unanimously disregarded are the unanswered prayers, most importantly within the majority statistic value of persons negatively effected in the same situation who also offered up prayer.  This is patently disingenuous and based in self delusion.

    Viewed solitarily the implications of  nonsensical, Christian positions are innocuous.  The only harm would be to the host theist and that's an individual choice and responsibility.  The larger problem is the way it is integrated into society, and it is constructed as such.  There are measurable harms that range from child endangerment to governmental control and assault on personal freedoms to virtually eliminating any possibility of world peace and civil discourse.

    Necessarily I need to shield my family members and friends from the imposition of rigidity and intolerance fostered by reigning ignorance.  That is why my focus on Christianity, though most of the grievances can be adapted to any theistic incarnation.  The only way to reduce (and eventually eliminate) superstitious self bondage and it's detriment is through education and therapy.  Get help.

   And I have created my great seed and now loathe unto it.  I am
bringing about it's eternal destruction and chaos while decreeing I
have nothing to do with it (your will not mine), having only created
you stupid things from whatever resources here (where the fuck am I).
Surely I hold no responsibility for your condition.  At a great,
arbitrary moment, and again another, I have altered my earlier
opinions to their converse as they have needed to change, as my
asserted omnipotence could not foresee the terror and treachery and
loathing my quasi-clones would elicit from my wrathful and egocentric
nature, nor the consequence of procreating myself, though not myself
(I know it sounds a little schizophrenic, but hey, that's me) and the
enduring restructuring of my disposition to accept your hated
existence and constant reminder of me; Nor could I have avoided having
to utilize the effects of my procreated, super-special, duplicity-
ridden, quasi-clone self and progenitor of self, and his/mine
traveling magic show of alchemy, levitation, virgin origin, and the
dual ability/destiny of becoming a zombie and then floating into the
air and out of sight only to be seen again as shrouded hallucinatory
messages ((as this is my most effective way to communicate with my
subjects) at random disjointed interval and circumstance) with a new
doctrine of "grace of god" (undeserved favor, as they continue to be
loathsome, broken, contemptible creatures) and faith (the necessity to
accept without doubt all tenets I have so clearly and unambiguously
laid out incontrovertibly (without regard to what you are to
experience in your lifetime and with particular avoidance of those
many things that run counter to these tenets)) with just a few
necessary conditions of which no mitigation shall be considered.

    Subservience to and observance of my (special) quasi sons name and
memory, invoking it and the terrible pain I/He suffered for some
fleeting arbitrary time (and how his moments of torment rank so much
higher than those who have suffered more greatly and perhaps more
enduringly, including children and other innocent victims) and you
shall be arbitrarily loved (not joking) (grace of god=undeserved
favor=arbitrary) though you are still a sinner (broken).  Oh yeah, you
have to mean it.  But I've already implied that with the faith thing.
Use your reasoning skills to infer it rather than having to have me
spell it out for you.  Whoa... just testing you there.  Now you're
going to hell if you don't apologize before you die (I'm serious, no
mitigation).  If it is not MY word it is not valid, and you will know
it is my word because it will be fractionally available to you in a
dilute and well obscured manner that seems mundane and trite relative
to alternative information.  You are to spread these creedo (by force
and unrelenting means where necessary) to stop atrocities within my
created realm, that I *perhaps* influenced/allowed/provided the
necessary conditions for, and to implement them in a self-inflating
manner until it is the only remaining doctrine; or until my (super)
quasi-clone me/him self returns to the broken quasi clones at an
undisclosed time in an undisclosed manner to dispense final eternal
pass or fail grades.  Sorry, time's up.  Pencils down.  Doesn't matter
if you're not old enough or mentally capable enough to hold a pencil.
You've been warned.  Now you've been judged.  Now you've been sent
away from my favor (majority interpretation due to a few hints and
direct references equivalent of the worst possible scenario to your
existence; think torture... now think infinite.... I'm sooo loving and
just.) Oooops.  Yes, I see you have repented and truly mean it, but
I'm sorry.... your former act of disbelief has disqualified you from
the bonus round.  You see that is the one unforgivable thing (yes
above murder, child rape and yes, even genocide, as it does seem I've
left loopholes for those types) but you had a moment of doubt when you
questioned my existence (yes I realise it had been quite a long time
since I've actually spoken with any of you).  Though you have served
me well, rules are rules.  Guess I get to continue loathing your
stupid ass.  Ha ha ha ha.  Yes, it's just to amuse myself.

    But wait there's more.  See, nothing in the hat.  *Tap, Tap*
Yahweh!!!!  Look, a seven-headed beast.  Oh, I hear trumpets.  I've
got to go now, lot's of politicians and other blood-sucking vampire-
goats to meet and greet here.  Sorry about your rational family
members and friends, (and their unbaptised children), you'll have
plenty of time to forget about that inequity with an eternity of vague
positive rhetoric of some sort as an existence.  Just keep getting on
your knees.  Ohhhhh yeaaah, that's a naughty subservient quasi-
clone....  Just like that.

A response in The Day to some bullshit :Obviously your editors have decided not to publish my last submission although you have no problem publishing the vile comment from Tami Wityak, friend of the Cooke family.  I am not clear as to why this is, but I will make another attempt here and cross my fingers.  Perhaps you will be fair this time.  After all, she was the idiot who decided to make herself a target by submitting logical fallacy and unsubstantiated assertions.  I was just responding to those.  The following is my new submission:
T.A.Wityak,
That you would assert the standing of two murdered young men without ever knowing them attests to your level of ignorance.  You do not know them and you do not know my family.  At the same time you are asserting a murderer’s innocence and lack of culpability, and completely exonerating his involvement, all without evidence to the contrary.  You are attacking the character of two murdered young men.  This is typical Argumentum Ad Hominem.  Why are you trying to vilify the victims in this?  For the record, both Gregory and Derek were wonderful giving people.  You would not know that because you have never known them.  I am their brother, and I was extremely close with both of them.

As to your assertion that "no evidence exists" and "he’s in prison" "because his bond is so high" , why do you suppose his bond is so high?  In my experience it seems the heinousness of the crime coupled with the proponderence of evidence are key factors in determining the level of bond.  Also, the probable cause hearing was resolved in the affirmative due to the state producing ample evidence of Cooke’s involvement, a hearing that my family and I attended as we do all the hearings.

I take your attack of my mother and my brothers’ as just that; an attack.  I now seriosly question your standing as a citizen, and wonder what atrocities you also condone.  It is apparent that you have an emotional attachment to this monster (ian cooke), and you should be viewed as the same sort of garbage that produced him in the first place.  I hope you had a chance to read this.  It would be a shame to let your ignorance go unchecked in a world where it seems that no one is safe from it anymore.  Regards, The brother of the VICTIMS.

 

On Feb 11, 7:36 pm, Joe wrote:
> I am not this body.  How do I know?
>
> Oftentimes, I find myself at odds with my body.  It does not always co-
> operate ideally with my mind. 

    As a function of time enters the equation the answer emerges as a question... when am I.  Were you to assume the four dimensions comprise existence, and the limit of our observational powers are the boundaries of the self at any given position within existence,  it seems ill informed to disregard those experiences both past and even future of a "perceived" present (where it is also assumed that perception is a qualification for self) unless you were to also disregard one's present "self"...  Here it seems that you are disregarding the fact that your self is also observing or imparting in that existence and you are, when filtered by perception, as experienced; as clumsy; as agile; as adept; as you are in that moment... you are a string of selves vibrating on the axes of the universe and can really only be determined by a multitude of considerations.  Does self have a measurable characteristic?  If it is beyond our observation than we are at a loss to debate it for we could not effectively communicate it to one another.  We are (currently and to my recollection) confined to the outer limits of our imagination and that is comprised of sensory correalation and is processed within those same confines.   

Anyone who has ever learned a new task
> that involves more than rudimentary skills can relate to this.  My own
> most vivid experience of it is as a musician, when I can hear some
> things in my mind but have not yet the mastery to be able to play what
> I hear.  Of course, practice makes perfect, as they say.
>
> But the very fact that practice is required points to the non-identity
> of me with this body.  If I were the body, there would be no tension
> between us (my body and me).  The body is not at odds with itself.
> The body takes care of itself.

 
    As a note: the body is constantly producing malformed and potentially harmful "essences" at the cellular levels and perfection is not necessarily a qualification for existence.. that brings a purely theological component into consideration.
 

It is my mind that wants to play the
> piano better (or my spirit --- but let us cross one bridge at a time!)
> and in order for my mind to accomplish my aim, work is necessary.  The
> response is not immediate.

 

    At any point in which the "mind" is doing anything it is always in a state of fluctuation, from one moment to the next, and is comprised of many elements in tandem at any given time.  It can be expressed as data or lists of data and is really a complex and large scale definition.  That the body reacts directly within the systemic links of the mind it is plausible that the mind and body both contribute to self... even spinal synapses,  those not noted in the recollection within the mind/self, would be necessary in this respect... so that begs the question: are we seeking a definition of self or of awareness...  at present we can only truly test and observe (to the affirmative as evidenced by multiple reputable sources) that which is bio/chemical; that is, that which is measurable as per definition and though under considerable debate, can be generally understood as just that--awareness is bio/chemical... to note: as is discussed in a related portion of this thread I have been under general anasthesia as of late for a broken femur (approximately a two hour procedure) and have no recollection of the procedure nor any conscious thought therein... I have only the witnesses, the scars and other circumstantial evidence to indicate I was my self at that point.  This would tend to rule out awareness as a qualification and thus tend toward this... You are the sum of the parts or the remaining parts as relative to it's own absence (or presence in the case of absence) an apparently binary consideration.  even in sub-atomic processes there is a probability as potential for existence, and in the past tense an expression of that probabilities outcome.

  That, in and of itself, would not
> necessarily indicate a dichotomy, but the fact that there is a
> discrepancy, does.  Were it the case that there was simply a delay in
> the carrying out of an intention, it could be attributed to the
> physiological processes necessary to get anything done.  But the
> experiential fact is, I can completely accomplish something in my
> mind, and can set my body into motion, and unless I have practiced
> enough, my body will not perform the task that my mind sets it to.

 

     I'm not sure you're not inventing paradox where none lie.  It would seem that this experiential event spoken of may have several components, including the seperation of any two most elemental particles of matter or energy (both being one thing expressed differently as defined with the time function) making it impossible for any two things to truly be one thing.  The experience is once again complex and as the time axis changes, so do the other three axes.  The system of lags and reactive correction seem to be part of the data stream that would constitute a self awareness, and though you experience a more efficient outcome within the time coefficient, the underlying fundamentals of the universe don't change... that is to say that your systems adjust within the boundaries of the possible and the task does not become easier you have adapted to the task, making "it" a part of your "current" self... *now this is important to the whole body/mind argument* were you to lose a finger you would still be you, but you would be you without a finger, and if you play guitar you could understand the implications herein.
In
> other words, there is more than a systemic lag in performance; rather,
> there is an actual divergence of intention and effect.
>
> But things that are of the same essence cannot actually diverge; only
> different essences can diverge.  Therefore, I am not this body.

    And here I just have a problem with the conclusion as dictated by my prior statements.

    Just something to chew on for a moment.  It's a bit agnostic.
   

     There really isn't much to this one. I haven't kept up with most people lately and that includes my inner circle. I prefer to converse in person, but lately I've just been inaccessible.  This, at least, will put me in contact with the rest of the world if only a little.  Sometimes I feel like I've spent more time in seclusion than V.P. Dickhead Chaney. 

     To all of my friends, welcome, and I'll try to get up.  Excuse my tardiness, but as my friend, you probably already have.  The more things change, the more they stay the same, who fuckin' knew?  I just want to thank everyone I haven't already, big up!  I'll get around to it.  Soon Come.