~ Things I Can't Accept ~

[ken]

I think not.

I know so.

Don't you mean 'Ken knows so."?

Certainly NOT.

Only 'I' know.

'ken' only thinks.

You are the one who wrote, "But don't bother to respond if you are going to talk about yourself in the third person." So I did not do that. But now you are telling me I was meant to respond and talk about 'My' self in the third person.

Pretentious dickwad.

If 'I' know that sometimes it is actually necessary to talk about and explain My 'self', ken, in the third person, in order to reveal the One and only True Self, then that is certainly not pretentious at all. That is just Truth.

[ken]

Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

It is because if there is 'a' lord, then people do not own that Lord. 'My' implies ownership.
Also, they believe that lord to be 'the' One and only lord of and for everyone, not just of and for some.

Here are two things I find perplexing:
Why do some people talk about lord or god when they completely reject and disbelieve 'it' wholeheartedly?
They talk about "it" as though 'it' is true and real. Why not just ignore "it" completely? If "it" is not real, then there really is nothing to discuss.
Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.

[sthitapragya]

Here are two things I find perplexing:
Why do some people talk about lord or god when they completely reject and disbelieve 'it' wholeheartedly?
They talk about "it" as though 'it' is true and real. Why not just ignore "it" completely? If "it" is not real, then there really is nothing to discuss.
Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.

Because it is a con job of horrific proportions. Religion is the single biggest business in the world. By far. If you accounted all the money that religious institutions have managed to con off people, you would be dumbfounded. I know of a single temple in India which is worth 10 billion dollars. And there are probably a million temples in India.

Then there are people like you who want to reject reason. There are others who want to teach Intelligent design in schools. You guys have no respect for evidence or scientific thought. Religion has been and will always be an impediment to science. Religion, after global warming, is the single biggest threat to humanity. That is why we bother.

However, while we understand what a big pollutant religion is, most religious people are too caught up in it to understand. So out of respect for their belief, we refer to their god as God with a capital 'G'. It is not out of any respect for the God. We have none for we are sure he does not exist. It is out of respect for the person who believes very firmly in that God and has emotional attachments to Him. It is out of consideration for a fellow human being.

[Walker]

Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.

I don’t know about some people or same people. However, I know why I capitalized it.

It’s the rule, ken. Rules are consciously created, and either consciously broken or ignorantly broken.

Capitalization Rules
http://libraryonline.com/?pID=48

Here’s the old map for your game plan.

First, change the rule and make “Lord” lower case when used to reference deity.

Then, get rid of the word completely. Make it an anachronism, and belittle anyone who does not follow the new proper grammatical form. Keep in mind that two legs are good, four legs are bad.

Be an activist and try to legally ban usage of the word Lord in secular society, and have it removed from historic documents.

However, prior to your success, when the rule is changed to lower case only, then folks will think differently of the word when it is written. (As you well know.)

After your success, when writing the word “Lord” is forbidden, people will no longer think it. But they will still feel something.

Next step is lobotomy, either chemical or surgical. But don’t call it that. Call it Soma (with a S, because that’s the rule.)

The real question is, why the knee-jerk urge to eradicate Lord, ken?


Monty Python And The Holy Grail - Help Help I'm Being Repressed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk
In which the question is asked, who is your Lord?

[ken]

In reply to both sthitapragya's and walker's replies.

Both of you replied to the exact same quote of mine. To Me:

It appears that sthitapragya believes that I reject reason, and therefore I believe in religion.

And,

It appears that walker believes that I want to eradicate 'lord' thus maybe also religion, and therefore I believe in reason.


More evidence of and more proof for my second goal in this forum, i.e., to show how the brain once operated, and especially its belief-system, in the "time" of when this is written.

From the exact same quote two apparently completely opposing views can be obtained by two different people. Both people looking at the exact same words but saying what appears to be the exact opposite.

This is either caused by My inability to be heard and understood fully. Learning how to express Self fully is my first goal. Or, people's already gained and held beliefs and assumptions effects and even stops a person's ability to look at and see what is actually being written, said, implied and/or meant.

[Walker]

Belief.

[Lacewing]

Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

It is because if there is 'a' lord, then people do not own that Lord. 'My' implies ownership.

Well that's an interesting perspective... but I don't think this is why they do it.

Also, they believe that lord to be 'the' One and only lord of and for everyone, not just of and for some.

I think THIS is why they do it. And it's wrong... and foolish... because anybody with any mental ability whatsoever, and a desire to be honest and realistic, can see/admit that there have been and are MANY lords throughout history and around the world. So to ignore all of that is dishonest and intoxicated.

Here are two things I find perplexing:
Why do some people talk about lord or god when they completely reject and disbelieve 'it' wholeheartedly?
They talk about "it" as though 'it' is true and real. Why not just ignore "it" completely? If "it" is not real, then there really is nothing to discuss.

Because we are immersed in the fantasy of "it"... so even though "it" is not real, the fantasy is very present?

Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.

Because it's like a logo/brand?

I try to use lowercase when I'm talking about "any" idea of "a" lord or god... and then sometimes I capitalize it to refer to the logo/brand if I'm addressing people who buy that product.

[ken]

Here are two things I find perplexing:
Why do some people talk about lord or god when they completely reject and disbelieve 'it' wholeheartedly?
They talk about "it" as though 'it' is true and real. Why not just ignore "it" completely? If "it" is not real, then there really is nothing to discuss.
Why do these same people even spell lord with a capitol L or god with a capitol G sometimes?
It is like they are subconsciously giving this absolutely false and unreal thing some authority over them selves.

Because it is a con job of horrific proportions. Religion is the single biggest business in the world. By far. If you accounted all the money that religious institutions have managed to con off people, you would be dumbfounded. I know of a single temple in India which is worth 10 billion dollars. And there are probably a million temples in India.

I was subliminally directing this post to you sthitapragya, and others.

I was hoping you would look at WHY you, in particular, actually persist in talking about things that are obviously completely false, to you.

Then there are people like you who want to reject reason.

When AND where have I ever shown anything that led you to jump to this conclusion?

Bring out and paste the quote, then we can look deeper into what I actually said and meant.

There are others who want to teach Intelligent design in schools. You guys have no respect for evidence or scientific thought.

Was the word 'you' in 'you guys' in any reference at all to Me or ken? If so, we really do have a long way to go here.

Religion has been and will always be an impediment to science. Religion, after global warming, is the single biggest threat to humanity. That is why we bother.

"One-day" the equal importance of "religion" and "science" together will be dis-covered. They both compliment each other. For one of countless examples religion will prove evolution and science will prove creation. This has happened for Me already, anyway.

However, while we understand what a big pollutant religion is, most religious people are too caught up in it to understand. So out of respect for their belief, we refer to their god as God with a capital 'G'. It is not out of any respect for the God. We have none for we are sure he does not exist.

So you write capital G for god not out of respect for something that you are sure does not exist, (and which you are now calling a "he" for some unknown reason to me), but out of respect in a belief of the that non-exist "male". Your views are appearing more and more confusing to others, i think, the more I delve deeper.

It is out of respect for the person who believes very firmly in that God and has emotional attachments to Him. It is out of consideration for a fellow human being.

Does your logic work for ALL human beings and ALL of their beliefs?

For example if a person who believes very firmly in a god and has emotional attachments to "him" that are so strong that then allows them to let us say kill other people who firmly believe in other things besides "that" god, then do you still say that out of consideration for a fellow human being you would act the same way?

I will not go into the fact that probably just as many "christian" followers want "others" dead as much as "muslim" followers want "others" dead. Or will I mention any of the other multitude of absolutely ridiculous things beliefs can cause, here.

I do not have respect for any belief, other than a belief in the ability of Self to create and achieve anything that It truly wants, without harming nor hurting anything.

I certainly do not have respect nor any consideration in beliefs that are in non-existant things and beliefs that will cause any harm and damage to anything. Actually, all beliefs described will prevent people from learning so they all cause harm and damage in some way or another.

[Walker]

Feel free to read my 3200 odd back posts anytime.

Where do you suggest I start? I am just relatively new here in this forum.

I was just reading a couple of your posts in What is most basics in ethics, and it appears you are suggesting humans should stop procreating. But I could be completely wrong here.

No, you're completely right. I'm am antinatalist, ken. If you really are interested, I'll explain further, but for the sake of everyone else who's heard it a million times here, I try to lay off the topic directly. Check my intro thread, perhaps.

Just read about daleks. They're all the same.

[Walker]

Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

What part of speech is "the?" (Not thee)

No answer?

Why am I not surprised.



The one you write to exists in your mind.
The one who writes to you does not.

[Lacewing]

What part of speech is "the?" (Not thee)

No answer?

Why am I not surprised.

I don't know why you're still asking about this -- as I did respond to you about it.

If you want to wrestle about the parts of speech, rather than addressing the point of the communication which is quite clear, that's your trip. I'm not going to play such games with you. Go play some bongos.

[Walker]

What part of speech is "the?" (Not thee)

No answer?

Why am I not surprised.

I don't know why you're still asking about this -- as I did respond to you about it.

If you want to wrestle about the parts of speech, rather than addressing the point of the communication which is quite clear, that's your trip. I'm not going to play such games with you. Go play some bongos.

"The" is the launching pad, or the doorway. I understand. Trust is the advantage of a sangha, and why an open forum is not one. I think an atmosphere of trust is a big reason why sangha is one of the three refuges. Refuge from what, you may ask? Easy enough to find out with all that information.

But there is an advantage to transcending limitations of communication inherent within the framework that borders the canvas. (There's that word again.)

[Walker]

Which reminds me ...

I recently witnessed a great mind trust in the wisdom of truth. I saw this great mind of logic attacked by crude ignorance and I thought, there is opportunity in that experiencing, and the witnessing of that experiencing. To my delight both the strength of tempering and the strength of bending revealed in dynamic voice energy. And I witnessed both. I saw the effects. I thought, that’s how it’s done. You don’t blink, you don’t cover your ears, and you don’t shut up. So, I suppose in that sense one can say that ignorance causing the situation in which that truth unfolds over time, serves a purpose. And the lesson was not lost on me, therefore the focused attention of the great mind was not wasted. Which is nice to know sometimes, don’t you know, even for that great mind who knows who he is.

[Dalek Prime]

Where do you suggest I start? I am just relatively new here in this forum.

I was just reading a couple of your posts in What is most basics in ethics, and it appears you are suggesting humans should stop procreating. But I could be completely wrong here.

No, you're completely right. I'm am antinatalist, ken. If you really are interested, I'll explain further, but for the sake of everyone else who's heard it a million times here, I try to lay off the topic directly. Check my intro thread, perhaps.

Just read about daleks. They're all the same.

We do aim for uniformity.

[thedoc]

No, you're completely right. I'm am antinatalist, ken. If you really are interested, I'll explain further, but for the sake of everyone else who's heard it a million times here, I try to lay off the topic directly. Check my intro thread, perhaps.

Just read about daleks. They're all the same.

We do aim for uniformity.

Daleks have only one goal, Exterminate!