For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You are continuing to talk nonsense.Jaded Sage wrote:Hobbes: One definition causes violence the other does not. I can see your prejudice will prevent me from making headway with you. Good day.
Oh look Jaded Sage has hooked a fish. Sadly she fails to respond adequately with this;Lacewing wrote:So you've been ignoring me when I wasn't even here?Jaded Sage wrote: I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.
Like the word "god", it seems the concepts of prayer and worship cannot avoid reflecting so many meanings/purposes that evolving and varied humans will assign. It may seem like the "intended meanings" have been tainted... but for some people, the originating beliefs are tainted. So the concepts either get discarded or reapplied to things that fit with individual beliefs. Personally, I do not like the concept of "worship" at all, as it seems to require an "other" of higher stature to bow down to and be (perhaps) obsessed by... which doesn't make sense in my own spiritual view. The word "prayer" however, (for me) could mean meditative communication with all that is. So I can relate to that.
Belief in gods -- and people's relationship with them -- has been so varied. There's no reason for me to conclude that any particular current perspective will be unchanging or un-evolving. The ideas of prayer and worship may be absolutely meaningless on all levels in 200 years. To me, everything seems geared within the quality of presence in the moment (however you go about it). Experience it now... treasure it now... find meaning now... enjoy it now. Each, for ourselves. What we can share feels glorious... but I don't think we need to share to be vibrating complete.
I fail to see how an original concept can be tainted. Paul was discussing what this new faith was. He was essentially inventing it. Seeing as how he founded most of it, it is impossible he tainted it.
But I do think maybe there is something to the idea of obsession.
You also seem to be making the same mistake as the other two using the standard definition when I have demonstrated that there is a problem with the standard definition. If you if you can't get past that I'll have to ignore you too as I don't see what else you contribute.
"Here" or "there" it is neither; never was.Jaded Sage wrote:Lacewing wrote:But not by the self?Jaded Sage wrote:I believe original intentions can be corrupted by others.
not if it is the original idea. Later it can be, but not originally.
We are way off topic. I think I'm gonna call it here.
Now I'm feeling foolish for taking it seriously. I think they are only supposed to last till noon so if it was an April Fools joke it was breaking the rules.Obvious Leo wrote:I'm still sure the entire topic was an April Fool's day joke which nobody twigged to.
It was actually a full day late, mate, but you've now dealt me a crushing and utterly unexpected blow which makes me completely question my ability to judge the human animal. Are you truly trying to tell me that you were taking this topic seriously?? I weep for my loss, Yorkie.Harbal wrote:Now I'm feeling foolish for taking it seriously. I think they are only supposed to last till noon so if it was an April Fools joke it was breaking the rules.Obvious Leo wrote:I'm still sure the entire topic was an April Fool's day joke which nobody twigged to.
Whether I was or wasn't would depend on which of the two leaves me in the best light.Obvious Leo wrote: Are you truly trying to tell me that you were taking this topic seriously??
With all due respect I reckon it's a bit late in the day for you to start worrying about the persona you're projecting here, mate. You've staked out your territory as a bullshit spotter and now you're stuck with it.Harbal wrote:Whether I was or wasn't would depend on which of the two leaves me in the best light.Obvious Leo wrote: Are you truly trying to tell me that you were taking this topic seriously??
Can you handle it from here, Leo, I've already worked my shift.Jaded Sage wrote:Not a joke just innovative or reconstructive.
Leave it with me, mate. I think most of the heavy lifting has been done and it's now just a mopping up operation.Harbal wrote:Can you handle it from here, Leo, I've already worked my shift.Jaded Sage wrote:Not a joke just innovative or reconstructive.
I think you may be paying rather too much attention to me, young lady, if you've noticed such a small detail. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with being scrutinised so closely, I can't help worrying that you may find something best left undiscovered.Lacewing wrote:Harbal, I notice you're looking the other direction now. I actually think this suits you better... as it shows that you're only partly engaged in all this entertaining nonsense.
As long as you're not posting full-body images... there's not much more for me to see. I relate to the expression of your avatar... so I guess that's why I notice. Kind of surprising, I admit.Harbal wrote:I think you may be paying rather too much attention to me, young lady, if you've noticed such a small detail. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with being scrutinised so closely, I can't help worrying that you may find something best left undiscovered.Lacewing wrote:Harbal, I notice you're looking the other direction now. I actually think this suits you better... as it shows that you're only partly engaged in all this entertaining nonsense.
Somebody suggested that it would look better the other way round so I tried it but I decided I prefered it how it was to start with so I changed it back. I didn't expect anyone to notice.Lacewing wrote: As long as you're not posting full-body images... there's not much more for me to see. I relate to the expression of your avatar... so I guess that's why I notice. Kind of surprising, I admit.