Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:07 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:02 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:37 pm Do you deny you are right wing? What is the normal usage of "right wing"?
I think people on the Left tend to use it for "something we don't agree with."

It's pretty much the same way they use words like "Trumpist" or "Nazi." They don't bother to think about whether or not it applies, because all they want is a pejorative to justify condeming the speaker and not having to listen to whatever he said.

But it's not the "right wing" tag I'm pointing out -- because that sort of tawdry ruse isn't worth addressing at all -- anybody with an ounce of sense sees what it really is, and dismisses it immediately. And those without sense...well, nothing can be done for them.

I'm just curious that you actually add whole sentences that I never said, and then say that I said them. That seems awfully deliberate.

You don't need to be fearful...
Fear was nowehere near me.

I never intend to confuse you or misquote you.
I label my political stance left wing. I claim some people who label themselves right wing are good people and some are bad people.If I want to say someone is a follower of Trump or some other nasty, I will not merely call them right wing. Trump is not merely right wing.
You need not be quarrelsome.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:20 pm**

Re: Christianity
Quote
Post by henry quirk » Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:57 pm

We have reached an impasse.

Pistols, at dawn?

……………………………………

Ha. No. We are not in that era. Keep on keeping on.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:49 pm**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:42 pm ...your enemies must be as real as your god...

"God." Capital "G."

And you'll find out.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:07 pm You need not be quarrelsome.

Me?

I was not "quarrelling." I was just pointing out that I never said anything like what you attributed to me. So my suggestion is that you might want to stop attributing things to me that didn't actually say. And that would be nice...and honest... and that would be good.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:54 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:49 pm "God." Capital "G."

And you'll find out.

I've already found out there's much greater than the story theists subscribe to. If you set aside all of the idols and symbols and books and stories and ego you continually polish, you might be able to see the magnificence that's right here, ever-present, all throughout all. Such has no limitation or representation according to mankind's stories about gods and their agendas. Such stories serve only man.

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:56 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:11 am If some thing is being 'invested in', then it is for the gain or benefit of that thing. So, for example, if ANY thing is being 'invested in' 'community', then it would be for the benefit of gain of that 'community'.

Therefore, if 'tyranny' is the result or outcome, then what was being 'invested' in would have ACTUALLY been 'tyranny' and NOT 'community' at all.

I did not use the word "invested" in the meaning you alluded to so I can understand your confusion. I often use the word similarly to the bolded meaning below...

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invested

See synonyms for: invest / invested / investing / investor on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object)
-to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
-to use (money), as in accumulating something:
-to invest large sums in books.
-to use, give, or devote (time, talent, etc.), as for a purpose or to achieve something:
He invested a lot of time in cleaning up the neighborhood after the flood.
-to furnish with power, authority, rank, etc.:
The Constitution invests the president with the power of veto.
-to furnish or endow with a power, right, etc.; vest:
Feudalism invested the lords with absolute authority over their vassals.
SEE MORE

Posted: **Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:43 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:44 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:28 am I do not recall dragging in personalities EVER. But, if ANY one thinks that I have, then please feel free to point out and show where.
Never said you did.

But what you actually wrote was: Why can no one on this forum address ideas without dragging in personalities. which means EVERY one, in this forum, which includes me, "drags in personalities". So, you were in fact saying I did.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:44 pm My post was to Henry, not you, and you are the personality he addressed.

OF COURSE your post was to "henry quirk", but you were talking about EVERY one.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:25 am**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:16 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:03 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:27 pm

God is equivalent to Gandalf except Gandalf's character is far more consistent, since it is authored by one being.
Gandalf is literally and figuratively more authentic.
So, if God, to you, is a fictional character, then OBVIOUSLY it could NOT exist, as a REAL thing. Therefore, your Honest answer would have been a 'No'.

Now, WHY do you even have discussions with "others" about fictional characters in regards to them existingbor not?

This, well to me anyway, appears to on the very edge of complete absurdity AND insanity.
Why is because I think it is important for all people to avoid self delusions and of benefit for them to unpack the assumptions upon which their belief systems work so that they may be better informed and able to go in to the world with open eyes.

You have obviously MISSED the POINT. Your definition of 'God' is OBVIOUSLY NOT the one ALL "others" use. What I think you will find is that there is NO one here, in this forum anyway, who disagrees with you that fictional characters do not exist, as real livings things. What this means is that when you use the word 'God', and what you ACTUALLY MEAN is a fictional character, and you say 'God does NOT exist', then NO one even disputes this CLAIM of YOURS.

Unless of course there is someone, which we will wait for.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:41 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:21 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am ...Besides all of this you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT from answering my CLARIFYING QUESTION specifically AND FULLY.
I answered it.

OF COURSE you answered. But what is just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that you did NOT answer it specifically AND FULLY. As I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWED.

You just appear to NOT be able to follow and comprehend this.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:21 pm You didn't understand the answer.

LOL I ACTUALLY wrote, FOR YOU, what you were ACTUALLY was referring to. But, when LOOKED AT, in written words, the ABSURDITY in YOUR answer became VERY CLEAR.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:21 pmI can't help you. It's like trying to reason with Greta Thunberg, it seems.

LOL

You do NOT even KNOW what you are 'trying to' "reason". As I have ALREADY CLEARLY SHOWN and PROVED.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:49 am**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:44 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:28 am I do not recall dragging in personalities EVER. But, if ANY one thinks that I have, then please feel free to point out and show where.
Never said you did.
But what you actually wrote was: Why can no one on this forum address ideas without dragging in personalities. which means EVERY one, in this forum, which includes me, "drags in personalities". So, you were in fact saying I did.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:44 pm My post was to Henry, not you, and you are the personality he addressed.
OF COURSE your post was to "henry quirk", but you were talking about EVERY one.

Whatever!

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:34 am**

simplicity wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:56 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:11 am If some thing is being 'invested in', then it is for the gain or benefit of that thing. So, for example, if ANY thing is being 'invested in' 'community', then it would be for the benefit of gain of that 'community'.

Therefore, if 'tyranny' is the result or outcome, then what was being 'invested' in would have ACTUALLY been 'tyranny' and NOT 'community' at all.
I did not use the word "invested" in the meaning you alluded to so I can understand your confusion. I often use the word similarly to the bolded meaning below...

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invested

See synonyms for: invest / invested / investing / investor on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object)
-to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
-to use (money), as in accumulating something:
-to invest large sums in books.
-to use, give, or devote (time, talent, etc.), as for a purpose or to achieve something:
He invested a lot of time in cleaning up the neighborhood after the flood.
-to furnish with power, authority, rank, etc.:
The Constitution invests the president with the power of veto.
-to furnish or endow with a power, right, etc.; vest:
Feudalism invested the lords with absolute authority over their vassals.
SEE MORE

It is GREAT that you have provided the meaning of the word 'invested' in the way you use it. Now what you said was: Too much power invested in community and you have tyranny...

So, if you used the word 'invested' similarly to, to furnish with power, authority, rank, etc., then what you are essentially saying is; If too much power is furnished with power, authority, rank, et cetera IN COMMUNITY, then you have tyranny. Which, to me, STILL does NOT logically follow.

What you are meaning, and 'trying to' say, is ALREADY well UNDERSTOOD. But what you are ACTUALLY saying is ILLOGICAL.

If ANY thing is FOR 'community', then it will NOT lead to tyranny.

OBVIOUSLY, if what is being done leads to tyranny, then what was being done was NOT 'in the communities best interest not in ANY interest AT ALL 'of the community'.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:42 am**

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:34 am If ANY thing is FOR 'community', then it will NOT lead to tyranny.

OBVIOUSLY, if what is being done leads to tyranny, then what was being done was NOT 'in the communities best interest not in ANY interest AT ALL 'of the community'.

This is where socialists/Communists misunderstand. Tyranny is a situation where any one person is dictated to. Just because those in The Party believe all is just dandy doesn't really work for everybody else.

Either you are free or you are not. "The community" has to be an agreement forged by free men and women, not governments and corporations.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:50 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 pm So my suggestion is that you might want to stop attributing things to me that didn't actually say. And that would be nice...and honest... and that would be good.

You didn't say anything... Only God speaks

You are God.

I do not know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Your lack of intelligent interpretation is embarrassing

John writes, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning” (John 1:1-2).
DAM: Jesus the man, aka consciousness aware it is dreaming,( capacity to be transcendental) is inseparable from the dreamer, aka consciousness itself.

Jesus was not only from the beginning, but also He was “in the beginning.” He was and is eternal in that He was before all creation and had no beginning and will have no end (Hebrews 7:3).
DAM:Jesus, aka consciousness, is known to itself, as the image of the imageless as and though identification with 'thought'

An image IS IN the imageless - the imageless is not in the image

This thought tells us that Jesus was not "in" God, He was and is with God (v. 2), meaning that He has a separate personality. The one God has three distinct personalities. He was not a God, as some believe; the Word, Jesus, is God. Jesus didn't come to reveal God; He came as God revealed.
DAM:The christain discourse in black letters is exactly the same idea that nonduality teaches, and yet you say you do not believe nonduality is truth.

And that's why you are the biggest fool of all fools IC

You're welcome.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:45 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:49 pm
Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:42 pm ...your enemies must be as real as your god...
"God." Capital "G."

And you'll find out.

There is no lower or higher G ... except as imagined as and through the artificial dream of 'conceptual' separation.

Return to your natural state of dreamless sleep. And you'll find out.

The truth is not out-there. To see truth, is to get out of the out, by going back in.

When you are in condescending mode. Mind that doesn't come back to bite you on the arse. The shockwaves can blow your mind.

.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:56 am**

simplicity wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:42 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 3:34 am If ANY thing is FOR 'community', then it will NOT lead to tyranny.

OBVIOUSLY, if what is being done leads to tyranny, then what was being done was NOT 'in the communities best interest not in ANY interest AT ALL 'of the community'.
This is where socialists/Communists misunderstand. Tyranny is a situation where any one person is dictated to. Just because those in The Party believe all is just dandy doesn't really work for everybody else.

Either you are free or you are not. "The community" has to be an agreement forged by free men and women, not governments and corporations.

What do you think or believe I have been saying and pointing out here?

Philosophy Now Forum

Christianity

Re: Deism

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Deism

Re: Christianity

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Deism

Re: Christianity

Re: Deism