Philosophy Now Forum

.




.......................................................................Meet Jesus







.

Since we have no Holy Inquisition any more I can say that I did not like it when Jesus lost his temper with the merchants in the temple. Perhaps they had small children to care for at home and needed the money to support them ?

God Father was good for ancient Jews.
Jesus was good for the first Christians.
The Holy Spirit (the reason) is what could be good for people today.
But the teachings of Jesus are still good today, most of them.

.




You would have to watch the video...at least in part.



I cannot stress strongly enough that in order to have a philosophical discussion within a thread members should actually read or view the original post.



Greetings




.

Screw your You Tube videos. If you've got something to say, say it.

.


I elaborated upon this topic in the Philosophy of Religion section here at Philosophy Now Forums.


You are invited to participate there as well...





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.


I elaborated upon this topic in the Philosophy of Religion section here at Philosophy Now Forums.


You are invited to participate there as well...




.

Hell, I don't even want to participate here, and I doubt anybody else does either, because you fail to make any kind of point except to waste everybody's time with your pompous and mindless posts.

Bill,

If you are a user, (whether now or in the past) you are one of many millions responsible for keeping drug trafficking alive.

If there was no demand, this vid would be obsolete. I don't understand what you are trying to portray. You seem to have a

morbid fixation on it, something like "there but for the grace of God go I".

.


There but for the grace of God go I.

Allegedly from a mid-sixteenth-century statement by John Bradford, "There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford", in reference to a group of prisoners being led to execution.


From Wiktionary:

• 1. A recognition that others' misfortune could be one's own, if it weren't for the blessing/kindness/luck bestowed by fate or the Divine.
  2. Man's fate is in God's hands.
  3. More generally, our fate is not entirely in our own hands.

...I kind of like that.[/size]



.

You avoided that one nicely.

I think the video, and ones similar to it by the National Geographic Society, Drugs Inc. are extremely well done.



I elaborated upon this topic in the Philosophy of Religion section here at Philosophy Now Forums.


You are invited to participate there as well...In that thread there is a bit more direction as far as participation.





Inside of me there is tension.


I am trying to use different elements of our shared human condition and look at them in another way.

I have often said - even within this forum, Philosophy is to look at something common in an uncommon way.


I hope I am doing that here. I have a number of active posts within this forum now that are beginning to point in an accumulative direction. I am trying to mesh seaming opposites with an oil of empathy.


Just something different I am trying on these boards - instead of just discussing philosophical terms or different dead authors a-infinitum.


What does this video speak to you?


Are you able to see drug usage and the need for drugs as something that is inherent in man?








.

Are you able to see drug usage and the need for drugs as something that is inherent in man?

Do you?

.


Yes




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I cannot stress strongly enough that in order to have a philosophical discussion within a thread members should actually read or view the original post.

I cannot stress strongly enough that in order to have people actually take our threads seriously we should make a good faith attempt to present our threads in the widely agreed upon format common to almost all threads on almost all philosophy forums.

If we instead repeatedly ignore the ongoing complaints of readers on multiple philosophy forums, it would be logical and in keeping with solid philosophical reasoning to expect that instead of the reasoned engagement we seek, we'll instead earn more complaints for our efforts.

I would have to agree it can be a challenge to take any of the philosophy forums too seriously, but it's also true that folks don't go to philosophy forums in hopes of finding the Cartoon Network.

The style in which you present your ideas is the equivalent of a fart joke, so you are being irrational if you expect much more than farting in reply.

In the coming virtual reality utopia, you'll be able to actually smell the awful aroma of my vote in agreement with Bob.

.



I appreciate your participation upon this thread.


Your company is duly noted.





Again, you are invited to view the video in relation to this thread and actually respond to the content of this thread.


You are welcomed.





.