zedvictor4

As far as I am concerned, marketing is marketing and good or bad isn't really the issue.

Nonetheless, a church and it's associated and variable requirements of infrastructure, therefore necessitate variable levels of promotion and marketing....Horses for courses as it were.

The truly devout will pray in the kitchen.

Simply, basic human instinct turned into human fantasy...It's how we function.

Religious fantasy or pornography, it's the same basic process of manipulating data and making subjective decisions.

Prude or porn star, theist or atheist, it's your choice.

Well, tongue in cheek for the benefit of our more devout debaters.....Though the sentiment was serious enough.

And Adam and Eve knew because they were instilled with awareness.

It's a pseudo erotic human tale that turned the act of human reproduction into an act of human pleasure and therefore into an act of assumed human sin against an assumed god....No god actually required....We actually made all this up for ourselves.

The people that control Trump obviously have a greater influence than Trump does himself.

I would suggest that there are currently other Presidents that  wield greater absolute power.

Though the collective power of technology and media is somewhat superseding the power of the individual.

It could also be argued that the Corona Virus is currently the most powerful thing. (Though the jury is out on whether a Virus is actually living or not).

Universally...Who knows?....What about this supposed god bloke?

As for the Pope....Well I think that the power of the Catholic Church has always been fragmented and also that the Pope is only a nominal Head....  Nice guy though.

The serpent is the penis....Biblical pornography.

And the juicy fruit!.....Yum Yum.

Nope. 

Nothing strange about a religious forum....I never said there was...That's your own inference.

"Strange" was simply presented as a description of the Sun's activity.

I merely attempted to point out that "strange" is a human descriptive and not the ongoing activity of the Sun.

As for the intelligent design argument, which I think is what you are alluding to.....I have never disagreed with this hypothesis....Considering the nature of the question that we are attempting to address, it is just as possible or impossible to assume purpose over chance as it is to assume chance over purpose.

Though one does find popular theistic hypotheses somewhat harder to swallow.

Nonetheless, the god principle is a valid option....But I prefer something a bit more logical than the myths and legends of the Bible.

And "mind" as far as we can be  minded is the physiological condition we attribute to ourselves...The condition that allows us to create more or less fantastical but unprovable hypotheses.

So story tellers tell you things.

Stuff of classic fantasy tales and yet accepted as true.

So a story teller told us of a place called Middle Earth.  Are we therefore expected to accept Middle Earth as fact also.

Happiness is not continuously sustainable.

Contentment is what we should strive to achieve.

Though on a more philosophical note, I would suggest than the purpose of human life, is it's role in the perpetuation of material development and evolution.

Fair enough.

I would suggest though,  that what you initially refer to, is trend, relative to social pressures, inspired by global integration.

Your latter white supremacist  remarks are probably more indicative of yourself rather than of the global reality.... Industrially and technologically , power is shifting more to the East, where in fact, I think it's fair to say, it all started in the first place.

It's a big world for sure but rapidly becoming tighter knit and slowly becoming more racially integrated....I'm only guessing that you are of the U.S.A, which ironically is one of the youngest and consequently  one of the  most diverse nations in terms of "race" ….Nonetheless it is still true that certain groups strive for insularity, which in a large Country such as the U.S can easily be achieved. Here in the U.K where we've been forced to homogenize for centuries you will find that the racial bigots are now a tiny and inconsequential majority and "racial" integration and equality is the generally accepted norm. 

And most of how we live our lives today is based upon "construct", that's the human condition.... Though ironically once again, race is in fact a perceivable difference both physiologically and geographically, though that's not to say that we do not also construct differences...The good thing is, differences can also be deconstructed and this is undoubtedly happening, albeit more slowly in certain regions.

Q.  What makes a White Jew not a White Jew?

A.   A Nazi.

@Melcharaz.

Read or not it's your choice.

I simply comment when I think a comment is appropriate, as I believe this is a fairly public forum rather than someone's  private conversation.

True.

The Sun, Stars, and Moon do what they do....(Though that's not to say that said celestial bodies think about what they do).

It's people that think and do strange things and also strangely worry about things that seem strange but actually aren't strange.....Things like gods and praying and considering that the sun is in lockdown for instance.

Men assumed authority because that was what men did. And up until not so very long ago that was what men generally did.....Male chauvinism, hence the biased textual content.

And what has the current reality of paying your taxes got to do with  the myths of the bible? 

So Jesus had his men friends but he also had his woman, maybe that was simply a biblical metaphor for swinging both ways.

And most tales tend to have a love interest built in....The charismatic thinker and the besotted socialite...Works for me.

@Melcharaz

What is a holy man?

Other than a fairly clever bloke that attempts to convivence the gullible of the fantastical....A story teller in other words.

Scripture is simply a written account of the said story.

Nope. A story told by men subsequently written down by men....A god being the central character....A common narrative the world over...Lets be fair and call it a naïve hypothesis...Though some of us are able to realise that human knowledge as somewhat exceeded the original hypotheses.... Nonetheless, the god principle is still sound in terms of an unknown choice between purpose and chance....But definitely not in terms of an ethereal, bearded Caucasian guy in flowing white robes....And no I'm not referring to Gandalf....That's another fantastical story.

Interesting how you perceive race as a Black and White issue....Why is this?

Absolutely true....Religious belief is a prime example. 

@Melcharaz

But gods don't say anything

When have you ever actually witnessed a god saying something?

The words of gods are the words of men.

@Melcharaz

More correctly, lucifer does have a relationship to Venus….The myth based on the perceived reality,  rather than the opposite.

What or who do you think is doing the simulating?

Or are you suggesting that everything is self simulating?

Or Is this really just about the god principle?

Notwithstanding these questions, I would suggest that the limited duration of the event negates conciseness of understanding.

Though, philosophically we can imply anything we wish to, so within this context the evidence is therefore evidence.

Yep I can read well enough.

But what were the implications of the text.

Up until about a century or so ago the  average life expectancy of a human being was only 25 years, so Jesus didn't do too badly. All these old geezers mentioned in the bible are probably mostly mythological. Though that is not to say that a few people didn't live beyond their fifties, and back in the day 50+ would have been considered old.

An interesting idea and one that I have instigated on other sites previously.

I often also stipulated no sources at all, as pages and pages of Wikipedia for example, are somewhat contrary to the objective.

And an observer should be more than able to consult MWD,  if they wish to check definition.

So what did he say then?

@Melcharaz.

Your views of a possible god are merely your views of a possible god.

Having an alternative opinion is having an alternative opinion.

Therefore disagreement is not mocking, but merely disagreement.

Refusing to accept that others have alternative opinions, is intolerance.

Preaching is for the pulpit, not for the debate forum.

Maybe so.

But any business undertaking ,small or large requires income and to be able to sell religion successfully  at any level, requires astute marketing of the product.

You seem only to be regarding this issue in the present tense though.

When I was your age, automation of labour was sci-fi and things such as smartphones and digital technology were unheard of.

It's therefore foolish to underestimate the rate and possibilities of techno-development.

@Melcharaz

And religion is the stuff of humans and maybe technology will achieve the god principle....We can only speculate.

Over think.

Ok.... So scholars, what ever scholars might imply, refute suggestions that the character Mary's intent was instinctively human rather than a metaphysical attachment.  I would certainly agree with the suggestion that Mary's devotion to Jesus was probably hormone driven .  Interpretations of the biblical tales and other similar myth based accounts have a tendency to exalt central characters and ignore the realities of the human condition.

Assuming that the said characters were actually based upon real people of course. 

Yep.

Though I would still say that in some circumstances being the target is part of the game for some.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but as I see it, the anonymity one has when participating on such sites somewhat implies that the root of perceived problems often lies with the recipient rather than with the perpetrator.

Ignorance really is a powerful tool in these sort of circumstances, but some people just don't seem to be able to ignore. Or perhaps even, they actually  do not want to ignore.

As I said maybe I'm too old and too thick skinned to understand. There was no internet when I was a teenager so disagreements were always face to face and sometimes ended up with a punch on the nose....So walk away and get over it.

Well in the main moderation only needs to be a quiet word, though if poor behaviour still persists then I suppose one has no choice but to take things further. 

I personally regard offence as the decision of the offended rather than any serious malintent by the perpetrator, certainly there have been no recent incidences on Dart that have exceeded this principle.

Dart really is just a bit too fluffy and nice currently. One misses the edginess that participants such as Ethang and Willows brought to the table. I was often at the end of Ethang's acerbic tongue, but that was all part of the enjoyment of Dart.

My advice to more sensitive souls would simply be to ignore what or who they find offensive...Ignorance is bliss after all.

Though sometimes it's as if the offence game is all a part of some peoples strategy.

Well I'm sure that some people are inspired by religion in this way.

But  out of the approximately 1.25 billion Catholics worldwide how many do you think actually regard their religion in this way?

I would suggest that most just go through the motions of a conditioned way of life,  simply because they think that is what they are supposed to be doing.

I would further suggest that, Inevitably and unavoidably,  money is the bottom line of most peoples day to day lives.

@Melcharaz

You block.

A. Because you are intolerant of alternative ideas

B. Therefore you only wish to preach rather than debate.

Millions believe in your god guy and millions don't....If you're going to participate in a global debate forum then you are going to have to get used to the fact that, alternative points of view abound.

Hopefully your behaviour is only indicative of a conditioned immaturity and not indicative of more an insidious intolerance.

@Melcharaz.

Quite obviously all  archaic religious mythologies have varied over time.

Just as the purposes and aims of popular religions have been forced to change to meet the demands of an evolving society.

Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.

In terms of wealth the Catholic Church is reputed to be No.1.....So this would seemingly make it the fullest by todays standards and requirements.

Events have a place and a duration...That is the indeterminate nature of our assumed reality.

Events require a participant and the question is the  participant  rather than the possibility of an event occurring.

So I would suggest that the possibilities are infinite, in so much as they are not subject to either creation or annihilation.

Whatever the participant may be, to account for it, seemingly demands either impossibility of creation (something from nothing), or infinite existence.  Though infinite existence is also seemingly impossible for the same reasons.

The Kalam argument does not address these simple but fundamental dilemmas.

As I stated previously The Kalam argument is one of several similar discourses, the purpose of which is to establish a  politico-religious agenda based upon an intrinsically flawed creation hypothesis.

@Melcharaz

So, I have pointed out the obvious flaws, in the world according to Melcharaz.

So why not respond with mature counter argument, rather than sending me unchallengeable and threatening messages.

You need to grow up.

@Melcharaz

Oh dear oh dear....Where have I seen that immature nonsense before.

@Malcharaz.

A load of nonsense.

Well, you did ask us all to give you our thoughts.

Whosoever  thought up the first god hypothesis did and did so for a reason.

So what were their reasons?

I would suggest that some people deliberately overlook the obvious,  in pursuit of the spiritual.

Also, embellishing the hypothesis is probably just a case one-upmanship.

Our god was born of a virgin...Ah, but our god was born of a virgin and he died and rose again and we also have the biggest pointiest buildings in the world and the best songs and the smelliest incense...so there....Ah, ours is best and yours is rubbish and you do the praying thing all wrong...so we will cut off your f***ing head....Ah, but we sit about all day humming and contemplating....  D'oh!

@Malcharaz

Quite obviously, everything that you want can be achieved without marriage. 

Why do you think that these requirements can only be achieved within a marriage?.......Because that is how you have been conditioned to think.

Pair bonding is not exclusively human, though all the associated performance and expense of the "big day" is.

Marriage is yet another human contrived unnecessity....A bit like religion in fact.

@ Malcharaz

Assumed god assumed religion...no big deal either.

This sort of stuff is maybe loosely fact based information, though  based on tales and supposition it is now rendered to mythology,  you therefore shouldn't expect it to be either consistent or verifiable.

Genuine dialogue on Dart, especially when it comes to religion is a rare thing... That is to say that fixed ideas are what they are and intolerance  therefore abounds. 

Given the hypothetical nature and consequent uncertainties associated with  religion and the god principle, one might expect greater flexibility of thought amongst supposed rational debaters, but that is rarely the case.

I would therefore suggest that a conditioned brain is just that....Primarily a rigid operating system that we become reliant on and reluctant to stray away from despite our ability to understand and manipulate new  or contentious data input.

If this isn't the case, then why are we not all sceptics?

Unfortunately scepticism is somewhat de rigueur here on Dart at the moment.

Be over contentious and you will be  banned and refuse to thump the bible and you will be dismissed.

In other words we adapt but not within a Darwinian context.

The question is, would we adapt quickly enough to keep pace with a potentially increased rate the rate of environmental change. 

And  yes, climate alarmists will probably ignore Darwin, because Darwinian evolution is contextually irrelevant.

I would suggest that space exploration is ongoing.... But if you envisage trekkian type space adventures happening anytime soon then think again....Near Earth orbit is the best we've been able to achieve for some considerable time now...Extending that comfortably and sustainably beyond the limits of the solar system is a whole different ball game, certainly not achievable in the "Near-Term" and maybe never achievable.

The slow creep of labour automation is ongoing and has been for some time. On the one hand it's a utopian dream and on the other it's a dystopian nightmare. It all depends upon where the human is able to find it's niche, and if population continues to grows as it currently is, then niches are going to be harder to come by.

For me It's more about how humanity  fits into the future, bigger picture.

And as Faux suggests, will our overall purpose actually be the facilitation of the machine/technology and it's development, rather than about technology making our lives easier.

That is to ask, what is the real purpose of material development/evolution?

Things have become as things have become, so consequently things are as they are.

Do you think that things could have been done differently?...…. Or is that really just the futile question that it is?

Similarly, things will become as they will become and the duration of events will render what will have occurred, irreversible.

Does this not suggest that things were always going to occur in the way that  they did?

And therefore things will continue to occur in the way that they will?

Maybe everything is inevitable.....The god principle, without all the singing and dancing as it were.

 

Yep.  The change has been good....I've easily adjusted to the "new normal".

Hello.

I think that we have a somewhat circular debate going on here.

I would suggest that answers to all these questions  can be found within previous discourse.

Now, that's nice friendly debating.   LOL

@Malcharaz

A community is a community and getting rid of the people who don't agree with you....well that brings to mind names like Stalin,  Pol Pot etc etc.