zedvictor4

A GOD PRINCIPLE is the surest thing...Whether that be a chance thing or a purposeful thing......But more than likely, not the beardy Caucasian of Orthodox iconography.

Not matter how much you espouse the "Ultimate reality", the image of the Orthodox God is still a beardy bloke.

An ultimate reality/GOD principle could be anything...An infinite beardy bloke, a big boom, the accumulation of all necessary knowledge etc etc.

So why would an omni-sensible universal GOD only be conducive to an Orthodox style of ritual?.....A somewhat narrow minded GOD it would seem.

In fact, why would an omni-sensible GOD feel the need to be worshipped at all?

I would suggest that the need to worship the unknowable, has simply become something of a silly human habit.... As humans are far from omni-sensible.

If there is a Orthodox style GOD out there somewhere, I expect that it finds us quite amusing.

Nonetheless, what you enjoy doing as your chosen pastime in your chosen club, is fine by me, as long as it remains harmless to others.

I don't need to know the intricacies of Orthodoxy or those of any other theistic variation of the Abrahamic GOD hypothesis.

Who swings the sweeter incense or wears the fanciest robes or chants the the most tuneful chants or paints the most colourful icons, doesn't interest me in the same why that it is important to you.

You either believe in a GOD or you don't....Irrespective of the variously available, rituals and embellishments....It's either the same GOD for everyone, or it isn't a GOD at all.

What is the alternative to time and space?

@Theweakerone.

Attempting to discuss contentious issues, and yet, you can't even read a dictionary.

And anyway, you've blocked me...So why are you still bothering to communicate?....Looks very much like trolling to me.

@RatMan

Hopefully that is correct.

Undoubtedly....We're all constantly monitored.

My "excuse" is that I am too busy.

And I agree with what you say...And achieving such, takes time and application.

I generally look at my computer for an hour at breakfast time and then forget about it for the rest of the day.....Better things to do.

Can tell fact from fiction though.

And true enough, it is all the same to me....A popular Middle Eastern GOD hypothesis, variously embellished.

Yep, not forgetting Strip Clubs.

Will Trump run and win?

All depends on how stupid Americans are.

An ultimate reality/GOD principle is a logical hypothesis....Assuming that the answer to an ultimate reality lies in Middle Eastern folklore is more of a long shot.

And assuming that one associate religious club is better than another, is simply club bias relative to conditioning.

Elon Musk

Once he's got y'all chipped, you won't care.

I once had a profile and then it disappeared....And the last time I tried to update it, I was unable to.

I'll have another go sometime.

@RatMan

Same Godhead different ritualism....Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Christianity...And all such schismatics and manifestations....Derived from the same Middle Eastern folklore.....And all trying to out do each other....And all united by their inability to prove the existence of the one GOD....And no amount of fancy chanting and mumbling and incense swinging will make one iota of difference to the fact.

But hey...What else you going to do on a Sunday.....Religious club, cycling club, rambling club etc etc etc.....All brings Monday.

@Theweakerone

So "Q" is for questioning and queer.

So what or who is queer?

According to the dictionary G is Q......Strange, odd...A gay man.

So we therefore teach kids that gay men are strange and odd...Rather than teach kids that paedophiles are strange and odd....Got it.

Yep...I understand the Emotion, and also the modern liberal need for LGBT justification.

But the contention was with Q separate to LGBT......What actually does Q represent?

Queer or questioning are ambiguous cans of worms....And as such I see no reason why P isn't Q.

So for the sake of LGBT justification, (within the context of schools and education) wouldn't it be best to remove Q from the equation?....Especially considering the past synonymity of G and Q.

And it's interesting how terminology get's recycled..... "Fags" for example.

Definitively a "pedofag" would therefore be a paedophilic gay man....Something of a faux pas me thinks, especially for the exclusive LGBT club.

Me....I'm happy with my H club membership.

@RatMan

Not sure what "exolocitly" means.

If you mean confirming with pictorial imagery, then yes that's true.....But it's fair to attribute past scholars, astronomers and explorers with a reasonably high degree of credibility.

Nonetheless an interesting point....Relative to the "GOD" debate....If confirming theory ultimately always relies upon "exolocit" evidence.

Typical Tarik.

Can you actually prove any of the above?

As ever, I think not...And I suppose that you still think that you don't need to.

@Theweakeredge.

The key to good debating is having the time to do it......And nothing better to do.

Which you will come to realise, when you have adult responsibilities and wider interests.

@RatMan.

Theoretically anything is viable....And anything can be simulated.

And so, the Earth is a cube.

And NASA has only been inexistence since 1958.....So, someone was telling porkies hundreds of years before NASA...In fact, hundreds of years before the USA....(Or simulating porkies, maybe).

You asking dumb questions for the sake of it.

Nonetheless:

"Why?" ....Because  I'm not Tarik.

"How?"....Because I possess the necessary cognitive ability.

What I stated was that non-consent was an assumption...(Determined only by relevant law).

So if two pre-consent, post pubescent teens have a sexual relationship...Who falls foul of the blame game?.....(The one who's parents can afford the best lawyers I would imagine)

And  your definition is not wholly correct.....P is attraction to children and children is variously defined.

Nonetheless, none of this is directly relevant to the OP.....This is only relevant to the Weakerone getting hung up on P.

I merely questioned Q, and referred to P as a possible candidate for Q.....Especially within the context of precedents relative to LGBT.

Maybe Q is just a tad too indefinite to be foisted upon non-consenting post pubescent (stupid) children....After all, if such children are considered too immature to comprehend sexuality, then how can they be expected to comprehend Q....Or even LGBT?...And GOD forbid heterosexuality!...Aaaagh.

Undoubtedly.

Though irrespective of legal consent, non-consent is an assumption.

How many children below a legal age of consent partake in consensual sex, with either each other or with adults?...Children and adults being those below and above a legal age of consent...17and 19 in the USA for example....15 and 17 in the UK....10 and 12 in Nigeria....20 and 22in Bahrain.

Trouble is when one discusses the P word, there is a tendency for the more highly strung, to instantly conjure up images of dirty old men and little prepubescent children..... Which in itself is something of a perverse state of mind.

@Theweakeredge.

No point in blocking me if you can't ignore me.

It's about competition and survival and what it takes.

Success is finding a niche.

Though success, certainly isn't wholly reliant upon wealth and status....Though more and more, we are unnecessarily, taught that it is.

Individuality comes with age and experience.

Time and Space are always the possibilities of event and duration

Time and Space existing is an unnecessity.

The sequence of events that is material evolution requires one causation...GOD principle....But not an existent floaty about bloke, without causation..

And something from nothing is magical and bewildering and is unlikely to be explained in this forum.

@Theweakeredge

@SupaDudz

So, can't get your own way, so throwing your toys out of the pushchair.....Children behaving like children....Fair enough.

But my advice is....Don't discuss mature subjects, if you're not mature enough to discuss mature subjects....Stick to playing games.

Because that is how I personally interpret nihilism, it's definition and it's application.

There are many such words, where despite their specific definition, when it comes to their attribution, the decision making process is clearly, arbitrary and subjective.

In my experience...I find that there is a noticeable difference between physical and mental tiredness in relation to sleep quality.

An underworked body and an overworked mind will result in a reduced ability to sleep effectively.... And rebalancing an overworked mind has obvious consequences relative to both sleep and dreams.

There is also a noticeable link between sleep quality and diet and eating patterns.

And a system imbalanced by medication will inevitably also have an impact on sleep function.

As I stated previously, and in short....In terms of function, one can only expect to get out, the results of what one puts in.

If the body is a temple, then treat it with respect.

And  the above can also have simultaneous effects in relation to "Sexual difficulties".

A person of few words.

"LGBT community"......An emotive plea for an anonymous collective, whose integrity you cannot vouch for....And notably you've excluded "Q" from the equation. 

If you recall, my initial question regarded "Q"... Therefore any subsequent equivalences inferred were direct at Q relative to P relative to the O.P.

Nonetheless the equivalences of past and present discrimination do present themselves, when considering the O.P......"LBTQ + topics in their history and sex education".

Sexual proclivities are, though your proclivity to be both defensive and offensive at the mere mention of the  P word overbore the relevant issues.

And you did not "correct me", you merely presented an alternative point of view....To assume a position of correctability,  is to say the least audacious, if not arrogant.

Well:

A. I'm in too much agreement.

B. I don't have the time to dedicate to a debate, against such a worthy debater as yourself.

Gender and Sex.....  Diluted definition and the confusing corruption of words.

Sounds like assumed morality to me.

And nihilism sounds like an arbitrarily applied subjective label......Rather like your assumed morality.

Which assertion?.....I simply Q'd Q...And cited P as a possible candidate for Q.

And you never justified the contradiction in past and present discrimination.

All that you gave, were tutorials on sexual and mental health... And risking the wrath of the PC crowd, one could argue that the same sexual and mental health issues could also be applied to LGBT, depending upon their proclivities of course....Nonetheless this all detracts from the OP and the pertinent Q's that evolve therefrom......And also your unwillingness to discuss the utterly ridiculous notion of teaching kids the S factor.

As as for your parting criticism.....Well, you are being a Troll too so there...... na na na na na.

Nice again....Another pearl of wisdom.

Who's freewill?

Nice.

Nope.....I would call it, assumed morality.

@StupiDudz

As I stated....I6 is the age of consent in the U.K.... (And variously, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21. depending upon where in the world one happens to reside.)

You obviously haven't learned to read yet.

So show me where I stated that I "Justify Paedophilia"......Maybe I will block you for telling defamatory lies.

I'm not that childish though.

@Weakeredge

And All I did was Q, Q........And P Q's Q....There's no getting away from the fact.

And once more for the record.... I'm S.....And being S doesn't even get a mention these days....In my opinion S should head the list (SLGBTQ) when it comes to sex education....Call me old fashioned if you like.

Hmmm.

So once again this comes down to how we view function and process.

I will give you, that arriving at a practical solution requires logical thought....But is this a necessary process every time we cross a road?

Isn't this simply about the acquisition and subsequent application of stored information, rather than logically sequencing information every time we need to cross a road.

Their is a  case for both I suppose....But I would suggest that this just reinforces my assertion that all human data output is basically subjective. 

I wasn't joking.

The whole LGBTQ debate revolves around a certain amount unsubstantiated assertions....That's the nature of the debate.....No assertion is "Empty" though.

The fact that I make suggestions that don't sit easily with you, does not make my suggestions empty.....Saying so, is just a quick, cheap, avoiding strategy. 

In all cases the motivation is the same and the achievement of satisfaction is the goal, and methodology is variable.....Simple assertion that does not require further evidence.

How society has variously viewed the taboo subject of sexuality and sexual gratification is a secondary, ongoing issue.

Primary drive - secondary consideration.

Research.....The 1900 Galveston hurricane claimed approximately 8000 lives.....Hurricane Harvey claimed 68....Still got a way to go, to beat that.

Stay warm.

Harmful is as harmful does and is just as arbitrary as numbers and ones definition of attraction.

And your finale of metaphors, is you floundering in the deep end without your arm bands, whilst the transsexual lifeguard is busy eyeing up all those teen beauties of indiscriminate age and gender.

And the instinctive urge to reproduce is still  just that...However one might choose to achieve satisfaction.

And just for the record...I'm what used to be regarded as "Straight"....Though interestingly you didn't suggest that S topics should be included in history and sex education.

How times change.

Snow comes and snow goes.

Internet connection is clearly not down.

In 6 months time it will probably be as hot as f**k.

Last time I came to the U.S.  I cycled across  Southern Texas, and it was as windy as f**k.

I don't read fiction, because I'm always aware in the back of my mind that it's all made up.

What do you regard as pudding?

In the U.K. Ice cream is either a pudding in itself, or an accompaniment to a pudding.