Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:00 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:43 pm

Don't try to gaslight me you disingenuous ****.

I'm not. You can see it from the earlier conversation. Dube actually proposed something that Dube can't even explain...nor can you...nor can AI.

Kind of amusing, that.

Pray, what was it that Dube proposed that he couldn't explain? Now be precise, don't lie and don't distort...but in your case, that may be asking too much!

What I find amusing, pathetic rather, are the idiots who believe that our so-called first parents were seduced by a taking snake who first seduced Eve who then seduced Adam which pissed-off god no end. Poor fellow, after all his efforts to provide us with a comfy home forever! One must voluntarily condemn oneself to certain insanity to believe anything so outrageously stupid which you've proven to perfections is indeed possible.

Actually the story of "adam" and "eve" helps in EXPLAINING HOW just those two only human beings were created THROUGH and BY evolution, itself.

And, the story about HOW a 'snake' FOOLED and DECEIVED earlier human beings ALL FITS INTO the BIG and CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture, AS WELL.

The Fact that "immanuel can" is 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE 'others' for supposedly NOT being ABLE TO EXPLAIN what they propose, which by the way CAN ACTUALLY BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, while it is "immaneul can" who OBVIOUSLY can NOT EXPLAIN what it proposes is VERY HUMOROUS TO WATCH PLAY OUT, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:05 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:00 pm
I'm not. You can see it from the earlier conversation. Dube actually proposed something that Dube can't even explain...nor can you...nor can AI.

Kind of amusing, that.

Pray, what was it that Dube proposed that he couldn't explain?

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 4:24 pm
One must clearly be careful how one feeds information to those whose comprehension is below idiot. So I'll make this as simple as possible.

Adam & Eve and all such depictions of the first mating couple = false


Yes, I understand you fully.

But what is the TRUE story, according to you? Since there was, according to you, no "first mating couple," what was there, in its place? What do you believe instead of that?

It can't be Evolutionism, because Evolutionism would proceed by sexual reproduction.

Therefore, it MUST HAVE BEEN A "man" who created and placed the first two mating human beings on earth, right "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:05 amAnd therefore, there WOULD have to be some "first mating couple," even if you didn't know what their names were. But you insist there was none. You say "all such depictions" are false. So whatever brand of Evolutionism you say you believe in, this would guarantee that it was not based on sexual reproduction.

And, whatever brand of 'Creationism' you say you believe in, "immanuel can", this would, also, guarantee that it was not based on sexual reproduction, right?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:05 am So how did it operate? By mitosis?

So, how did it begin, EXACTLY?

By a 'male gendered' it or being?

Now, OBVIOUSLY "immanuel can" is NOT going to ANSWER and CLARIFY my QUESTIONS, here, BECAUSE even if it ATTEMPTED TO "immanuel can" would just only END UP CONTRADICTING, "itself".

Begin Memorandum

It came to me in an intense Epiphany this morning that I, Alexis Jacobi, am a late incarnation of The Hyperborean Apollo.

It would be appreciated, therefore, if I’d be addressed from here on out as Servant of the Divine Foresight.

Thank you.

Bless you all (in a very abstract sense).

End Memorandum

I suppose "the impossible" refers to miracles . When Biblical events occurred there was no science in the modern sense. Miracles as reported in The Bible are not miraculous because they are inconsistent with science, which was not a concern for those people. The miracle was an event that caused a sudden change in understanding. The Wedding at Cana (Gospel of John) was not a miracle because of a chemical change in the water, it was a miracle because Jesus showed how the traditional wedding ritual with wine did not depend upon which fluid was drunk, but depended upon the meaning of the ritual.

The meaning of the wedding ritual was ,as is common to cultures, that a man and a woman are bound together in marriage with the approval of the people assembled.

Jesus the rabbi was demonstrating what we may call common sense when a traditional ceremony seemed to have gone wrong.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 3:11 pm Begin Memorandum

It came to me in an intense Epiphany this morning that I, Alexis Jacobi, am a late incarnation of The Hyperborean Apollo.

It would be appreciated, therefore, if I’d be addressed from here on out as Servant of the Divine Foresight.

Thank you.

Bless you all (in a very abstract sense).

End Memorandum

Apollonians are noted for plain reasoning language

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 5:12 pm Apollonians are noted for plain reasoning language

I’m still getting used to being in a physical body, Belinda. Show some mercy! (That terrible word of yours — “turgid” — still clangs in my ears! Various times I’ve retreated to the bathroom to cry).

"Evolutionism would proceed by sexual reproduction"

It's one thing to be ignorant, another thing to be proud of it.

At this point I now have in my possession the larger part of the Intellectual Rosetta Stone, and can now explain what needs explaining about the nature of our existence here.

I will be doling it out, bit by glorious bit, crumb by sumptuous crumb, as the days unfold and as the Hyperborean Spirit dictates.

May blessings rain and knowledge clobber you, one by one and one for all.

— Servant of the Divine Foresight

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:02 pm "Evolutionism would proceed by sexual reproduction"

It's one thing to be ignorant, another thing to be proud of it.

I agree. So, since you think Evolutionism doesn't require sexual reproduction, how does it work?

You explain, so you show us all you're not "ignorant." We'll wait.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 5:09 pm Jesus showed how the traditional wedding ritual with wine did not depend upon which fluid was drunk, but depended upon the meaning of the ritual.

Do you just make this stuff up to suit yourself?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:34 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 5:09 pm Jesus showed how the traditional wedding ritual with wine did not depend upon which fluid was drunk, but depended upon the meaning of the ritual.

Do you just make this stuff up to suit yourself?

No I have not that much creative talent.
I have however a passing acquaintance with anthropology .

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:34 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 5:09 pm Jesus showed how the traditional wedding ritual with wine did not depend upon which fluid was drunk, but depended upon the meaning of the ritual.

Do you just make this stuff up to suit yourself?

No I have not that much creative talent.
I have however a passing acquaintance with anthropology .

Not much with exegesis or theology, however. That much, I can tell. And I've never run into a single credible theologian who would take your interpretation of the Wedding in Cana. It's the first time I've ever seen something so completely speculative and unrelated to the text drawn out of it. So it must come from anthropology, because no other department of academia would be nutty enough to suggest it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:08 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:34 pm Do you just make this stuff up to suit yourself?

No I have not that much creative talent.
I have however a passing acquaintance with anthropology .

Not much with exegesis or theology, however. That much, I can tell. And I've never run into a single credible theologian who would take your interpretation of the Wedding in Cana. It's the first time I've ever seen something so completely speculative and unrelated to the text drawn out of it. So it must come from anthropology, because no other department of academia would be nutty enough to suggest it.

I read this interpretation once (I forget where). Jesus turning water into wine is the rapid version of the miracle God performs whenever wine is made. The water nourishes the grapes, which ripen and then ferment, turning into wine. Jesus just did it quicker.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:08 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:48 pm

No I have not that much creative talent.
I have however a passing acquaintance with anthropology .

Not much with exegesis or theology, however. That much, I can tell. And I've never run into a single credible theologian who would take your interpretation of the Wedding in Cana. It's the first time I've ever seen something so completely speculative and unrelated to the text drawn out of it. So it must come from anthropology, because no other department of academia would be nutty enough to suggest it.

I read this interpretation once (I forget where). Jesus turning water into wine is the rapid version of the miracle God performs whenever wine is made. The water nourishes the grapes, which ripen and then ferment, turning into wine. Jesus just did it quicker.

Classic.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:08 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:34 pm Do you just make this stuff up to suit yourself?

No I have not that much creative talent.
I have however a passing acquaintance with anthropology .

Not much with exegesis or theology, however. That much, I can tell.

And, 'we' can tell that you do NOT have ANY actual acquaintance WITH actual 'theology', itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:08 pm And I've never run into a single credible theologian who would take your interpretation of the Wedding in Cana.

And, what you call and refer to as 'a credible theologian' is NOT an actual credible 'theologian' AT ALL.

LOL Those who say or write just what you WANT TO HEAR are NOT actually 'credible theologians'. As has ALREADY been SHOWN and PROVED.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:08 pm
It's the first time I've ever seen something so completely speculative and unrelated to the text drawn out of it. So it must come from anthropology, because no other department of academia would be nutty enough to suggest it.

LOL What you "immanuel can" take as CREDIBLE are 'those departments', which CLAIM that God is A 'male gendered'.

Talk about A PRIME example of departments that are 'ABSOLUTELY Truly NUTTY', as some would say.