For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You can either attempt to refute what I said or shut the fuck up.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:34 amNice!I love it when arrogance meets ignorance. It's always so funny.
Hinduism? You're a Hindu?Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:42 pmDestiny is the inevitability of karma. As Steppenwolf reminds us, some folks are born to be wild.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:15 pm? Not sure what that means, W. What's "destiny," for one thing?
Lose the ego, lose free will. What then determines action? The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe.
Transcending the individuality of free will destroys ego, transcends karma, transcends samsara, and voila, wu wei.
Don't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.
You will find that that is simply not true. Even rudimentary research will confirm it. You can list as many crackpot cults as you like - it does not change the fact that Calvin was correct when he pointed out the fallacy of an omnipotent god peddling free will.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:46 pmDon't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.
The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.
Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be.
You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.
"Crackpot cults?"Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:54 pmYou can list as many crackpot cults as you likeImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:46 pmDon't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.
The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.
Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be.
You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.
Man, you're hilarious! You don't even need a single fact to get you going, do you? Awesome. Keep rolling...I can't wait to see what you come up with next.Crackpot as well as deplorable, I'm getting better.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:03 pm"Crackpot cults?"Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:54 pmYou can list as many crackpot cults as you likeImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:46 pm
Don't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.
The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.
Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be.
You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.
Sculptor's thinkin' is muddled from all that necro-incest he indulges in.BardoXV wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:30 pmCrackpot as well as deplorable, I'm getting better.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:03 pm"Crackpot cults?"
Because all situations are workable, in the spirit of philosophy and under Golden Rule authority I must decline personal inquiries.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:41 pmHinduism? You're a Hindu?Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:42 pmDestiny is the inevitability of karma. As Steppenwolf reminds us, some folks are born to be wild.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:15 pm
? Not sure what that means, W. What's "destiny," for one thing?
Lose the ego, lose free will. What then determines action? The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe.
Transcending the individuality of free will destroys ego, transcends karma, transcends samsara, and voila, wu wei.
Mr Can, what you apparently don't understand from inside your bubble is that to anyone on the outside, "the theological controversies" have all the weight of whether god wears Y-fronts or boxer shorts. To us, the issue is the one you take for granted, but cannot demonstrate: whether there is a god that wears underpants of any sort.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:46 pmIf you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies...
Jesus?uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:52 pmMr Can, what you apparently don't understand from inside your bubble is that to anyone on the outside, "the theological controversies" have all the weight of whether god wears Y-fronts or boxer shorts. To us, the issue is the one you take for granted, but cannot demonstrate: whether there is a god that wears underpants of any sort.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:46 pmIf you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies...
Frankly, I think the evidence that the stories about Jesus are a politically motivated fiction is far more compelling than the evidence that the gospels are about an historical figure. Still, I suppose there might have been a real Jesus. If so, he musta been a boxer short guy, because Y-fronts weren't invented until 1935. Then again, as the son of god, I would have to concede that he could have worn any support for his holy bollocks you care to imagine.
Certainly there are fractures in American society similarly to where I live in England. You may be right about devolution, if it is devolution you imply by "just too big".America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.
No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.
And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.