Total posts: 1,331
Posted in:
how trying to date or choosing to date sometimes doesn't make sense
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
your arguments weren't adding up, cause i think the proper way to address it, is by arguing that 'an eye for an eye' wasn't meant literally.
Created:
a good argument that an eye for an eye wasn't meant literally, is that both modern and ancient jews didn't take it literally.
This is a complex topic that may have varying interpretations.Rabbinic Judaism rejects the literal meaning of "an eye for an eye" in the Torah. Instead, they insist that it stands for compensatory damages, such as the value of an eye for an eye.The Talmud interprets "an eye for an eye" as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases. They argue against the interpretation by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind."An eye for an eye" is a famous summary statement regarding appropriate punishment for a wrong, especially personal injury. It has been variously understood as requiring equivalent, even duplicate, punishment or as setting a limit on punishment.The principle of "an eye for an eye" was used in Hammurabi's Code and also in Judaism.
Created:
Posted in:
"Black Pill is for Tinder, Red Pill is for the club and Blue Pill is for church."
"Black pill is just a brutal reality check of your situation, which in turn helps you decide whether or not to pursue the red pill or accept defeat"
"I believe in Red pill because it worked for me. The first 30 years of my life I was not getting anything. Then I worked on myself and my game and had an over abundance. I'm an average looking guy. I think the black pill can be relevant if you are unwilling to get yourself in ok shape and figure out who you are as a person."
Created:
Posted in:
analysis of all the pills
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
that's an excellent analogy, but at least to our human minds, it's a paradox or contradiction. jesus is god, the father is god, but the father isn't the son. superficially it's an illogical syllogism.
some lesser good analogies compared to yours. a three leaf clover. each person of the trinity is in a different dimension but still god, thus can be considered same but different. the oceans of water, are all water and thus one, but each ocean is distinctly its own thing... as can also be compared to the body of believers, different parts, one body, united to jesus. a comparison that is also great that i made is.... like a father is both a son, father and brother... so too is God a father son and spirit in one, united mystically to humans by the son.
i think it's fair to give your analogy, but it's just an analogy. the spirit and body are distinct, and not the same, even if they are united in one being. it's illogical to say they are the same and different at one time. on this side of eternity, i think it's more accurate to say there's good ways to describe it, but it's a paradox, or even a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
hook up culture mostly hurts women, but we should also talk about men too
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
you are a super weird and radicalized dude. you have some great ideas sometimes too, i'll give you that.
Created:
Posted in:
the college and hook up culture we have, hurts both men and women, but it mostly hurts women. im surprised this quote doesn't include lack of passing on women's genes... cause college and hook ups, are artificial methods that distract from our biological drives, and as has been said, women end up getting infertile and then it's too late.
According to Psychology Today, hookup culture has been widely documented and is widely documented. Some say that hookup culture can do more harm than good.Here are some ways that hookup culture can hurt women:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
most of the time you come up with some wild comparisons that think there's no way to distinguish, when in reality reasonable people can come to different ways of distinguishing. but then sometimes you come up with ideas that are hard to argue with. i dont know why child labor exploitation for the benefit of the masses isn't talked or advocated about more... but it's obvious the ultimate reason is because it benefits the masses, so the masses like to look other way.
Created:
Posted in:
different philophsical approaches to genders and modern dating in usa
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you have achieved one of your goals in life, by experiencing a sucky life. remember, experience, for the sake of experience. also, you have achieved very perceptive insights by having your condition... you achieved wisdom. even if you never become an exceptional writer or philsopher, you achieved wisdom and experience from the unique perspective of best korea.
you go, you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you've definitely taken some time to come to some basic but profoundly insights on this topic. maybe you are meant to be a nihilist. if you want to develop your nihilism, maybe you should read more explicitly from nihilistic philosphers.
Created:
Posted in:
that guys whole channel is super insightful. i wouldn't be surprised if he's a genius, and if not, then autistic in his insights.
Created:
Posted in:
how dating and romance sucks for many men, and why many are opting out
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
here's a quick long list of attractiveness facts that defy political correctness, but are true. very insightful. i think you might have a care about this sorta stuff, but not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
bliss v non bliss.
you said it yourself, we can't function in life without pain, and we also can't know light without dark. it's inherent in our reality. we can't know bliss without non bliss. could there be a reality where there is only bliss and no non bliss? yes, but it's not meant for our purposes here, in my opinion. also, i expressly didn't say only the abuse can maximize bliss... i'm saying the abused coudn't know bliss unless they experienced non bliss.
another idea, is according to new age thinking, it's not just alleviating suffering,,, but also experience for the sake of experience. we are the universe experiencing itself. experience is the end game in our reality, not necessarily maximal bliss, though that should be everyone's goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
you have a lot of insightful ideas. also consider that philsophers often agreed on the idea of maximizing happiness for everyone, as a moral thing to work towards. maximzing, not necessarily being perfect. also consider that the point of life, is for humans to alleviate suffering, and suffering can't be alleviated unless it exists to begin with. also consider that we can't know bliss without knowing non bliss. also consider that jesus said those who suffer, will one day bring glory to God, when they no longer suffer. i know i've told you these ideas, and you've rejected many of them... but i'm just reiterating.
Created:
Posted in:
According to a 2023 Gallup poll, nearly a quarter of Americans think it is morally acceptable for a married person to have more than one spouse at the same time. This is an increase from 5% in 2006.Polygamy is rare in the United States and Canada, especially in the West. However, it has recently made a comeback due to popular TV shows that show a positive side to it.Polygamy is illegal in most countries, and laws that allow it are primarily found in the Middle East and Africa. However, some cultures accept polygamy, such as some Islamic, Hindu, and even Christian countries.
Created:
Posted in:
the quote from the last post, is like the modern 'no fat or ugly chicks' in modern times,and no below median men, for how hard it is for modern men in the usa to breed or have relationships. but if half of women are soon not gonna be breeding, as is the fact i've heard, then i think our modern monogamous lifestyle, and college and hook up culture (these are constraining women when they are younger and should be reproducing. women lose fertility fast and faster between thirty and forty, to a large degree, and we see women fucking around until 30, not setttling the next few years, then not being able to reproduce at all by the time they find someone), and refusing to settle, are all pressuring women be less successful biologically, in reproducing,than they use to be.
Created:
Posted in:
Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
Created:
or maybe an eye for an eye was never meant to be taken literally, but just meant that injuring another person, allows for proportional compensation. that's not so bad, if we interpret it that way.
"An eye for an eye" is a metaphor that means punishment should be equal in kind to the offense. It's based on the concept of lex talionis, the law of retaliation, which is expressed in Exodus 21:24. The principle of "an eye for an eye" means that if someone puts out another's eye, one of the offender's eyes should be put out.However, some say that "an eye for an eye" can't be applied to all situations because it would produce absurd results. For example, a car thief may not have a car to steal, and an arsonist may not own anything to burn down. Others say that "an eye for an eye" would not be fair if the person is punished even though they are innocent.In Judaism, Isaac Kalimi said that the Rabbis "humanized" the lex talionis by interpreting "an eye for an eye" to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
an eye for an eye is the default and what humans deserve, but jesus showed a higher method? but, point blank, if a human injures another human, the transgressor deserves to himself be similarly injured? if even we as christians choose mercy instead?
Created:
Posted in:
According to a 2011 paper, early humans began to shift towards monogamy around 3.5 million years ago. However, the species never evolved to be 100% monogamous.Fossil evidence suggests that monogamy predates even Ardipithecus ramidus, a 4.4-million-year-old partial female skeleton.Recent anthropological data suggests that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has only been in place for the last 1,000 years.In Israel, the Second Temple period, from 515 B.C.E. to 70 C.E., brought about widespread monogamy. Men began to pledge their fidelity to their first wife and polygyny in the area was reduced.Scientists at University College London believe monogamy emerged so males could protect their infants from other males in ancestral groups who may kill them in order to mate with their mothers.
i've read that most males, historially, didn't reproduce. a minority of men, were responsible for multiple women having babies. the current trend with dating, in the usa, is that women only are atracted to the top fifth of men, and get passed around by them when they are younger. i think what's happening, is that many women refuse to settle or lower their standards, in expectation of our still mostly monogamous society, and so we see stats that show half of adults will soon be unmarried and childless, women included.
but is this trend to fuck around when younger, and the breaking of social norms regarding sex and marriage and attractions, leading to a time when only 'chads' and above average men will impregnante the majority of women? if life long monogamy is only recent, and being serial monogamous before that for a short while... are humans evolving back to the old polyamorous set up? are we in the process of switching? it kinda looks like that, and it's at the root of humans as a biological species.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
well i've made a certain peace with the idea that maybe the penalty of sin is death, and not only that, that maybe humans are made to put them to death for sinning, at least in the old testament. (though the modern death penalty could be said to be morally and divinely applicable sometimes too).... so is the bottom line, that, criminally, when someone injures someone else, that person who insured the other, they deserve to be injured themselves? if a person pokes out someone's eye or take their tooth, is their just penalty for their own eye and tooth to be taken? i understand that there can legit be a play on when the law is necessary, and when mercy is necessary.. but it's a lot to accept that the just consequence of insuring someone is that they the transgressor should himself be injured.
the short quote and you, are both not clarifying whether the old law was just meant for them, or if it's what we all deserve, even if there was a higher way made by jesus.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
what do you think of my last post and the quoted text i gave? would you be open to the idea that 'an eye for an eye' wasn't God's teaching for humanity, but God's practical approach to work with humans? like a lot in the bible, it doesn't quite make sense if we approach it the way we've been taught by religions, but could make sense if it's understood differently and tweaked.
Created:
Ancient Judah wasn’t just a religion, it was a country with its own civil law. In the United States, if you crash your car into another vehicle, and it’s your fault, the other person can take you to court and force you to pay for the damages to their car. Similarly, in ancient Judah, if you punched some guy and blinded him in one eye, then he had the right to take you to court and have you blinded in one eye as well.One section of the Bible (called the Torah or Pentateuch) is mostly just a list of civil ordinances. It covers everything from how to deal with cases of assault to the penalties for allowing your cow to trample someone else’s field.The Bible contains a list of civil ordinances that are only applicable to the nation of Judah, and are by no means intended as a guide to the daily morality of someone living in the middle of the United States (or any other country that isn’t ancient Judah). The law in the United States mandates jail time for thieves, but that doesn’t give you the right to lock someone in your basement for five to ten years if you catch them breaking into your car. Some laws are designed to govern a nation, and some penalties are meant to be enforced by a governing body. Other writings in the Bible make this point perfectly clear: the law was meant for the citizens of Judah (i.e. the Jews). If you were not a citizen of Judah, either directly or by proxy, then those laws did not apply to you.Jesus was a reformer of sorts. Imagine you stop at a stop light and some other car crashes into your back bumper. In the United States, at least, you have the right to claim damages from the other driver. Jesus would have argued that the right thing to do is to let the other driver go without suing them for damages. A few years after the time of Jesus, Paul of Tarsus theorized that the civil law of Judah was primarily intended to show would-be criminals what they deserved, and not to show would-be victims the penalties that they should impose. In other words, the law was meant, in part, to instruct people in good behavior by appealing to empathy.I recently saw a comment in which a woman asserted that anyone who swears at another person in a bar deserves to have a beer dumped over their head. That certainly seems like a rational option to an angry person, doesn’t it? The whole “eye for an eye” thing teaches us otherwise. A beer over the head deserves a beer over the head, and mean words only deserve mean words. Jesus, of course, would have argued that a beer over the head deserves a beer over the head, but the right thing to do is walk away from the conflict without exacting retribution.
i found this excellent analysis on the internet. but even by this standard, it seems 'an eye for an eye' is a man made law for that local people, or for humans as humans. but if this was the case, it was still only a law for humans and by humans. maybe an eye for an eye isn't God's rule, but maybe the heart of the old testament is that God's rule for them was "be good enough". and the law of the new testament was "have faith and try to be good". (more precisely, repent, believe in jesus, and try to progress in holiness)
here are more great insight into finding how to reconcile this stuff
maybe an eye for an eye, literally, was a criminal penalty, and also a basis for fair civil judgments? it's fair to penalize people criminally, and there does need to be a way to meat out justice civially in the name of justice, even if the higher standard of Jesus and st paul was to let shit slide and let bygones be bygones. considered this way, maybe an eye for an eye is still the law of humans as a default, even if normally we're called for more?
i feel like i'm getting closer to reconciling the two theologies, but it seems the only way to authentically do so, is to tweak the old rule beyond what it's normally interpreted as
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
it's almost such, that i want to say the old testament is man's covenant with God, but the new testament is God's covenant with man. but i know you and other good christians would tell me i'm wrong.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level.The Law was sent to show us our need for Christ. It is the gold standard that nobody could uphold perfectly. And therefore the judgment was death for breaking it.Once we get to Christ we are saved from the penalty of the Law, and now our new contract has different terms and conditions for not just a single nation (Israel) but all humanity.So eye for and eye for example, is still true, and still the standard. But as the saying goes, an eye for an eye would make the world blind. So, the new covenant teaches turn the other cheek. This, put into practice is more suitable for all humanity
it seems like you're arguing 'that's just the way it is'. which could be true, but i am just not seeing how they can be reconciled, the two theologies both being possible.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
"And, also, I would strongly challenge the idea that we are seeing healing miracles of the magnitude Christ performed today. "
even jesus said that his followers would go on to perform greater works than the people of his day saw. most people interpret that as miralces but is there more to it? i do acknowledge that we dont see the dead raised and such, but there are healings all the time, medically, even to this day. you might be right but i would be careful to say so, even the conventional wisdom of that bible verse, and the fact that miracles still happen to this day.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
how can a consistent God at different times teach both? how does truth change?There are moral truths that transcend both covenants. i.e. murder was wrong before during and after the old covenant. But there are some moral stipulations that were for a specific time. Turn the other cheek is superior to eye for and eye, and is the recommended way for all nations. The Jews practiced eye for an eye because that was best for their society at the time
you are good at making general arguments, but i'm not seeing a deeper way of reconciling these apparently irreconciable truths. i understand that the purpose of love with both being good, but also being merciful when we aren't good, but i can't see saying the old testament idea of an eye for an eye was 'being good or good enough' when they are flatly contradictory. i could see if we said the old testament ideas were just cultural like we make about other old bible rules, but we are told that the old covenant was more than just cultural but a divine contract. i still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level.
Created:
i also have some issues with how Jesus did mostly healing miracles, which we still see today, while the old testament has miracles that dont happy anymore of the same type, like the red sea being split. maybe he today he's not making the supernatural obvious by obviously supernatural things, leaving room for plausible deniablity and faith, given faith is a purpose of this life)
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
how do you reconcile 'and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' with 'turn the cheek'? how can a consistent God at different times teach both? how does truth change? i realize jesus' death changes things, but why is that the case that they're different at all? why couldn't his death focus more on defeating sin and death, and not trying to square up things that look like contradictions?
Created:
im mostly looking for theological and philsophical ways to reconcile the basic covenants... eye for an eye, turn the cheek; salvation by works, salvation by faith.
i still maintain it's possible to say the bible is inerrant, depending on how one interprets it, as i think i was self working out in my opening post. (i presented problems, then showed ways of reconciing them)
i do know, the new tesstament isn't as bad, except it has difficulties too (such as how jesus said no one can divorce except for unlawful sex reasons, then everyone in the church twists this to the point of breaking the rule, while claiming to beleive in an inerrant bible, and then holding gays to the standard of no gay sex, even when that could plauisbly the rationalized with the right interpreation while the divorce rule is clear and seemingly not open to interpration. except by reading to it things that aren't there)
Created:
i like the bahi faith. it teaches a lot of truth that is similar to near death experiences. but it's based on the quran, which is self evidently a man made book and not of God (chopping off heads, chopping off hands, getting virgins at death etc)
buddhism has a lot of englightened teachings, but it is just a philsophy that men have came up with, and doesn't try to pretend be more than that, or a 'true' religion. that's cool, but it's not the 'truth'.
id throw in how ridiculous hinduism seems, but i dont know enough about it to talk about it.
christianity is the only religion that teaches the truth. look at how its philsophy meshes with the human condition, seeking supernatural love and the importance o relationships. how it meshes with the message of near death experiences, which is obviously good evidence for the afterlife and self evidently to anyone without a stone heart, a message of God and enlightenment on the human condition.
Created:
on one of the most fundamental levels, the old testament teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. the new testament teaches turn the other cheek. how can such a fundamental difference be something that a christian must accept both as infallible truth? does truth change? how?
but it's more than that core theological difference. the old testament has God killing people over and over again, or commanding them to die. see the story of noah where he killed the whole earth, or the time he turned a woman to stone for questioning where she was headed and looking back to her old lifei understand that it's plausible that the consequences of sin is death, which even the bible says and is as true a statement as they come. but it seems to again be in stark contrast to the God of the new testament. what's with this bipolar God of the new testament and the hippie God of the new testament? i realize even Jesus pointed out that the commandment and consequence of disrespecting ones parents is death, but how can such a difference be fundamentally compatible with each other? (i often wonder if jesus was being literal that that's the way the world is, or if he was saying 'even by this standard, the pharisees weren't being consistent with mercy')
but it's more than these broader frictions. the old testament says unclean food is ungodly, yet the new testament says nothing God has made clean is unclean. how should we accept that Jesus' death change something unclean to something clean? or the old testament says men with deformed penis' can't enter into the assembly of the lord, which sounds like they can't enter heaven. how did jesus' death make deformed penis' acceptable? and the context doesn't indicate this old testament verse was against self mutilation, but that any deformed penis was too much, even from a disability or injury. the best i can surmise, if these old testament verses are true... is that these are ceremonial laws, and ceremonial laws can change with a covenant change, assuming the covenant change was legit to begin with. it's kinda like how often cultural differences are legit changes in the bible, (why it says women can't lead or wear hats in church, even in the new testament, but everyone now accept as just cultural norms being changed) and not infallible differences being changed arbitrarily. ceremony and culture are both legit and reasonable ways of differentiating, but the theology for why the rules were the way they were to begin with, or how they can change, can still seem arbitrary and capricious, to use legal jargon.
we also have things that dont make sense theologically.
-the bible looks literal of the story of noah in the old testament, and the new testament treats the story literal too. i dont have time to list all the scientific discrepancies of that story, such as how there's a constant lineage of cultures everywhere and constant archeological evidence of no flood everywhere, yet supposedly God destroyed it all... and hid or changed the evidence? to me, when God performs a miracle like he does with phsyical healings even in this day and age, he supports the miracle with evidence and truth. (such as the congregation of the causes of the saints with the catholic church) the story of noah isn't supported by evidence, but contradicts it. maybe it wasn't meant to be taken literally or was a local event?
-i'll add more examples in the future.
Created:
Jesus said if a man doesn't have a sword then let him get one. He also said to turn the cheek, but that's more to do with accepting being wronged is good sometimes, and to let smaller things slide.
Jesus didn't fight back, but he could have. That was his sacrifice... he let sin and death, take him down. he conquered it in the end anyway, by his resurrection
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's not that there r no answers to the issues you pose that could help explain god, it's just that you find the answers unacceptable. That's your choice, but you shouldn't pretend there's no way to explain it
Created:
i ddn't read all the opening post, but it didn't look like an insurrection to me. i see there are arguments for and against him egging them on, but if it was truly an insurrection, i think it would be clearer. i dont think he'd say to 'peaceably' protest like he did. i realize that's just one point in the pro v con of whether it was an insurrection, but at most i see that he egged them on. his opponents are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
you just ignored dude's point, that compared to the vast majority of our ancestors, your modern life is pretty luxurious and privileged. all you said was that you hate your life, but you ignored the point that your life is actually probably better than the vast majority of humans that existed.
also the conventional wisdom is that only the toughest players get so much of the struggle.
id try your best to improve your situation. try to make friends given relationships are the biggest determinant of happiness. and then also try to embrace looking at the positive side of things, and try to choose to be happy, cause as they say, happiness is a choice. to the extent that you can, of course. and use your priveleged role as a modern human, and get some help for your mental help.
work towards self improvement. life is meaningless without struggle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
"Yes and the modern world blows up peoples heads with bombs and drones. Same stuff, diffrent times. "Teaches about virgins" - You can get whatever you want in heaven (logically). So why is asking for virgins a bad thing? What is self-evident. The only thing self-evident is the lack of critical thinking here. "
this is one of the stupidest arguments i ever heard, regarding trying to rationalize chopping of heads and hands. and you claim it's me not thinking critically.
really think about this. does the God of love that you pretend to worship, really wanting you to chop of heads and hands, and focus on getting lots of sex when you die? does that really sound like a divine plan to you? it's obviously as man made of a teaching, as we can get.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Shake ya ass, but watch yaself... shake ya ass, but watch yaself... shake ya ass, show me what ya workin' with
Created:
Posted in:
The quaran talks about cutting off heads and hands. I dunno if it's official teaching, but also teaches getting a bunch of virgins at death. This all seems self evident ally, not from god
Created:
i typed wrong... this is what this paragraph should say
"the other thing you messing up on, is that i gave you hard science, yet, like an atheist or skeptic, you just choose to ignore it. like this thread says, it's illogical to claim i haven't presented evidence FOR THE AFTERLIFE in this thread. the bible isn't the only source for evidence for the afterlife, but yes the bible is evidence too."
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
so it sounds like you use the bible to disregard NDEs. i see two problems with that.
i think you r misinterpreting the bible, cause you follow fundamentalism that says non christians can't be saved. if you look at the verses where jesus says who isn't saved, it's those who reject the light for the darkness. those who reject jesus. the bible says no where that all non christians go to hell. the good news of the gospel, is that if you are a chrsiitan, though, you will be saved. jesus said he came to save the world, not condemn it. those who reject the light are already condemned, says the bible. i do take caution in that NDEs often make it seem like everyone is saved, when even NDEs show at least one percent of NDEs as negative, and there's lots who die and come back and dont experience anything... so i understand the need for caution.
the other thing you messing up on, is that i gave you hard science, yet, like an atheist or skeptic, you just choose to ignore it. like this thread says, it's illogical to claim i haven't presented evidence for the bible in this thread. the bible isn't the only source for evidence for the afterlife, but yes the bible is evidence too.
your problem is that you are clinging to man made religions instead of the truth in the bible, and in science. even christians can get caught up in the pit falls of religion, dont be mistaken.
so yes, unfortunately you are distorting truth, science, philopsphy, theology, and spirituality... for the sake of religion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I agree that transformers should have the same rights as everyone else
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
WE HAVE THE FACTS AND WE'RE VOTING 'YES'
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
You've said that before, that ndes don't convince you of anything. But given u believe in the afterlife to begin with, it especially don't make sense to me. Do you think it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die, and supposedly this is meaningless? What about the fact that out of body phenomenon is shown accurate under scientific conditions? That the blind see? I wouldn't think someone who believes in the afterlife would torture their logic and all the evidence, like skeptics do.
Created: