Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

I wonder: if I tallied the number of jabs sent my way by you OR Shaky, versus the few retorts I've sent in reply, let alone the two of you in combination against me, who would really be seen more accurately heckling whom?

I marvel that you even try to use the little information I've given you about when I'm able to post due to my weekly schedule as a weapon, "recede into the shadows ..."

As if I didn't tell you on Day 2 of my participation in this thread [January 9th] that my time would be random and limited:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

But no belief system espoused by religion yields good things in people's lives and benefits society across the board.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so. Nor is it true that there is no empirical evidence to support my premise.

Here is the first counterexample that comes to mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112

But I think we're talking on different levels.

I'm short on time until the beginning of most people's typical workweek (i.e. Monday), so I hope you'll understand that I can only answer piecemeal and at random until then. Have patience.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, Stealth Moose is a little bit wrong about that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I wonder: if I tallied the number of jabs sent my way by you OR Shaky, versus the few retorts I've sent in reply, let alone the two of you in combination against me, who would really be seen more accurately heckling whom?

I marvel that you even try to use the little information I've given you about when I'm able to post due to my weekly schedule as a weapon, "recede into the shadows ..."

As if I [b]didn't tell you on Day 2 of my participation in this thread [January 9th] that my time would be random and limited:
[/B]

Well, anyone who talks to themselves about things that are not the topic deserves to be jabbed at.

Go to the off topic forum and make "feel sorry for myself" threads all day long.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I wonder: if I tallied the number of jabs sent my way by you OR Shaky, versus the few retorts I've sent in reply, let alone the two of you in combination against me, who would really be seen more accurately heckling whom?

This probably wouldn't even be an issue if you answered honestly and didn't dance around the issues. The link you posted is a single study referencing healthy lifestyle living, which is independent of belief system, which does not adhere to the natural principles belief system which you espoused and refused to elaborate upon. Specifically, I made a reference to homosexuality, because it is often the target of 'natural principles' arguments, and you all but told me that humans make animals gay, which is the height of ridiculous.

You got yourself deeper and deeper in the muck by making all these bold claims, and then you fall back to nitpicking your opponents personally and dodging their questions or using red herrings to avoid taking personal responsibility for the personal views you have given.

I marvel that you even try to use the little information I've given you about when I'm able to post due to my weekly schedule as a weapon, "recede into the shadows ..."

As if I [b]didn't tell you on Day 2 of my participation in this thread [January 9th] that my time would be random and limited:[/b]

As is mine. I usually only reply during slow work hours, which can be sporadic and undetermined, or late at night after all other work is done. But I still am consistently making more sense than you, and not dodging questions leveled my way. Take the question you just asked me and I answered forthright, without blinking an eye.

Suddenly, that's not important?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=3

Quick, reference something else. All eyes are on you yet again.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This probably wouldn't even be an issue if you answered honestly and didn't dance around the issues. The link you posted is a single study referencing healthy lifestyle living, which is independent of belief system, which does not adhere to the natural principles belief system which you espoused and refused to elaborate upon. Specifically, I made a reference to homosexuality, because it is often the target of 'natural principles' arguments, and you all but told me that humans make animals gay, which is the height of ridiculous.

You got yourself deeper and deeper in the muck by making all these bold claims, and then you fall back to nitpicking your opponents personally and dodging their questions or using red herrings to avoid taking personal responsibility for the personal views you have given.

As is mine. I usually only reply during slow work hours, which can be sporadic and undetermined, or late at night after all other work is done. But I still am consistently making more sense than you, and not dodging questions leveled my way. Take the question you just asked me and I answered forthright, without blinking an eye.

Suddenly, that's not important?

Quick, reference something else. All eyes are on you yet again.

Plus the first think he does is accuse me of having JIA banned. He didn't ask, he wasn't nice about it, he didn't show any concern about the possibility that he was wrong, and now he wines about being jabbed. 🙄

Pretty sure they attend the same evangelical church.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The link you posted is a single study ...

Correct. In a forum where people frequently complain about being given multiple things to view or examine, it makes sense to give as little as possible at a time.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
... referencing healthy lifestyle living, which is independent of belief system ...

This is evidence of the language problem I alluded to earlier.

If the Seventh Day Adventist belief system is independent of healthy lifestyle living as you just claimed, why are either the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the National Institute of Health highlighting it as the very title of their article?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The healthy Seventh-Day Adventist lifestyle: what is the Norwegian experience?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did the National Institute of Health think it worth their time to study in the first place?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
... which does not adhere to the natural principles belief system which you espoused ...

Not so.

Seventh Day Adventists are famous for taking their dietary direction from the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 29:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%3A29&version=KJV

Hard to get much more natural than that, regardless of how you're using the term.

What this might not adhere to is your misrepresentation of my natural principles belief system, as far as I have expressed it:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.

... but that is something else entirely.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
... you espoused and refused to elaborate upon ...

Not so.

You mentioned this in another thread in this forum we were involved in, "Ex-Gay Pride The Truth About Homosexuality".

Even Shakyamunison was able to infer my meaning, and put forth a question, which I answered directly:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is bluewaterrider talking about things like gravity or quinton mechanics when he says "fundamental truths"?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Bluewaterrider is, indeed, talking about things like gravity.

That is, in fact, why Bluewaterrider included " ... under ordinary conditions" as part of that definition.

He had Stephen Covey in mind foremost; he also had Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the 21 to 56 second range of the following video when he wrote that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1iJXOUMJpg
5 min 34 sec
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" ... [J]ust to put that in context:

If you wanted to escape the Earth,
it's actually possible to do that --
contrary to what your grandparents told you.

Where they said "What goes up, must come down"?
That's just not true.

Well, there's nothing your grandparents ever [b]threw that never came down.
But rockets, with high enough speed ...

You can send something so it never comes back.
For Earth, that speed is 7 miles per second, and we call that the escape velocity ...
[but]most of life experience tells you that what goes up comes down ..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/B]

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Specifically, I made a reference to homosexuality ...

Yes.

You do that a lot.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
because it is often the target of 'natural principles' arguments, and you all but told me that humans make animals gay, which is the height of ridiculous.

No, I told you that one of the images in that meme you posted, one of 2 elephants humping, reminded me of prior viewings and readings on elephants exhibiting other out-of-the ordinary behaviors. Such as humping rhinos. And killing rhinos. And then I showed you evidence, that, although the behavior might seem natural at first glance, if puzzling, it was ultimately human-caused.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You got yourself deeper and deeper in the muck by making all these bold claims ...

Show me where I said what you're claiming I did.

If you can.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I still am consistently making more sense than you, and not dodging questions leveled my way. Take the question you just asked me and I answered forthright, without blinking an eye.

Suddenly, that's not important?

One, I didn't ask you a very hard question.
Two, you seem to be under the impression that we're under some sort of ultimate thread time limit. With some threads on this forum page active now for more than six YEARS, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Three, there's absolutely nothing preventing me from returning to that topic in the foreseeable future.
Four, with limited time, answering that question effectively means, for today, that I cannot answer OTHER questions that you seem equally insistent about.

Such as the ones I just answered with this post.

Which is the purpose of presenting me a text wall of multiple questions like you did to BEGIN with, right?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This probably wouldn't even be an issue if you answered honestly and didn't dance around the issues.

Not likely.

You are aware enough of your habit of mockery that you currently even WARN people of it in your profile.

Which I took a screenshot of, viewable below, for proof.

Have a good day, Moose.

@bluewaterrider

If you are going to quote me, then do it right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is bluewaterrider talking about things like gravity or quinton mechanics when he says "fundamental truths"? Or could it be a list of personifications that his particular denomination of Christianity believe in?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...Not likely.

You are aware enough of your habit of mockery that you currently even WARN people of it in your profile.

Which I took a screenshot of, viewable below, for proof.

Have a good day, Moose.

Man, that is just weird.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Correct. In a forum where people frequently complain about being given multiple things to view or examine, it makes sense to give as little as possible at a time.

And the point is a single study doesn't set a precedent, for the same reason why a single bad grade doesn't mean you're a bad student; it doesn't necessarily explain all variables and it's subject to revision based on future repeated study.

It is amusing that you didn't see the point of me singling this out. It shows just how in-depth your command of science really is.

This is evidence of the language problem I alluded to earlier.

No, we sorted this out. And by that I mean you asserted I had a language problem, and I've repeatedly demonstrated this is not the case. "We have a language problem" is BRW-speak for "I'm using a non-standard definition so I can change parameters of the debate".

If the Seventh Day Adventist belief system is independent of healthy lifestyle living as you just claimed, why are either the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the National Institute of Health highlighting it as the very title of their article?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The healthy Seventh-Day Adventist lifestyle: what is the Norwegian experience?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did the National Institute of Health think it worth their time to study in the first place?

Why did the researchers at Tokyo's University of Electro-Communications make SHIRI, a realistic ass?

I don't know. The very brief amount of text on the link you provided gives us zero insight into the study at hand. I was uninterested in plunging into the full details and fact-checking your source which you didn't even provide context for; you just URL-dropped it as if it was a self-evident point.

If a 'study' made truth, then according to animal studies, pregnancy fat may alter a baby's brain and cause obesity later in liufe. This evidence is so evident and conclusive I've taken to shaming any and all fat pregnant ladies. So far, 13 concussions from angry husbands.

Let's recap since you are so fond of misdirection:

1. You asserted that natural principles can create a belief system, which in turn determines things of moral worth. 2
2. You asserted that this natural principle belief system, which you gave the vaguest definition to, says things like gay sex, even among animals, is wrong and clearly not natural because humans create it.
3. You then refused to further elaborate on your definition, which did not communicate anything that anyone else besides yourself could understand, and you refused to answer my direct questions when I challenged your bold assertions that there are people out there, forcing animals to have gay sex. (Which still is beyond hilarious).

If you're so sure of your argument, you can concisely share it here, and its strength will bear the brunt of any attack. If you are so uncertain of its ability to withstand my snark, well... I guess you have nothing to share with us and you should withdraw.

Not so.

Seventh Day Adventists are famous for taking their dietary direction from the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 29:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%3A29&version=KJV

Hard to get much more natural than that, regardless of how you're using the term.

What this might not adhere to is your [b]misrepresentation of my natural principles belief system, as far as I have expressed it:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=4

... but that is something else entirely.[/b]

You explicitly said thus:

[list]Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.[/list]

Since when is Genesis, written by Moses, a human-made item, adhering to natural principles?

Did you just spend half a post before lecturing me on how unnatural things are created by humans? So what is the Bible then? Penned by Moses, but inspired by God somehow? For reals? But isn't that unnatural?

Get your argument together. You're like a cross-eyed hydra.

Not so.

You mentioned this in another thread in this forum we were involved in, "Ex-Gay Pride The Truth About Homosexuality".

Even Shakyamunison was able to infer my meaning, and put forth a question, which I answered directly:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=583683&pagenumber=14

You need to add more large spaces in your posts. It helps reinforce the vacuum from which you pull these half-formed truths.

You forgot that, in response to your post I said this:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I'm not sure how belief systems can be related to any such thing. How do you derive an ought from an is?

You chose not to answer it.

In fact, when I challenged you directly, what did you do? Link to something about JIA being banned.

You are afraid to answer honestly, and it is this dishonest trait that makes you worth the scorn you receive. If you were honest, whether or not you were right, I could at least try to respect you. But you are devious and shifty, blatantly ignoring questions, pretending like they were answered, constantly reshifting the focus on others so that your own faults and inability to reason are out of view.

Yes.

You do that a lot.

Does that bother you? Do they bother you, BWR? Do they not fit your natural principles, according to Bible worldview?

You find it perfectly okay to judge people for not believing, or for being gay, or whatever offense your God apparently has. You know, that almighty being who is threatened by people being themselves... But when you come under fire for your inability to justify these beliefs and your inability to answer honestly and directly, you pout and stomp your feet.

Childish, really.

(Continued)

No, I told you that one of the images in that meme you posted, one of 2 elephants humping, reminded me of prior viewings and readings on elephants exhibiting other out-of-the ordinary behaviors. Such as humping rhinos. And killing rhinos. And then I showed you evidence, that, although the behavior might seem natural at first glance, if puzzling, it was ultimately human-caused.

Show me where I said what you're claiming I did.

If you can.

DERP.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You included some animals humping other animals to suggest that homosexuality is natural.

The question presents itself :

"Natural" under exactly what conditions?

Given what those conditions REALLY might be, are the animals in that picture you presented photo-ed IN their natural state?

First, however, let's get a standard definition of "natural".

Simply "Googling" the word yields the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is useful.
Were we to with the first part as our definition "existing in ... nature",
there would scarcely be any point in a discussion.

Computers and atomic bombs could [b]exist in nature.

The second part is the limiter that provides some practical meaning:
"not made or caused by humankind".

I am not at all sure that the animal humping behavior depicted in your small picture collage satisfies this part.
Especially not if we focus on a specific example like the elephants.

For it is well-known that people in prison perform homosexual acts.
It is less well-known that animals behave similarly.
It is even less well known that, for animals who roam and migrate, otherwise large-looking tracts of land, are, in fact "prison" of a sort,
in the sense that they are cut off from resources, fraught with trauma and stress, and discouraging to the fostering of normal behavior and relationships.

In point of fact, that picture resonated for me.
For I've recently seen not only elephants humping other elephants, as in your picture, but also elephants humping rhinos.
And elephants goring rhinos.
And elephants killing rhinos.

The latter you see in nature.
From that standpoint alone you could argue it is "natural".

If you knew not the history, you might even argue it was un-caused by humankind.

And you'd be wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU
3 min 4 sec [/B]

Ignoring the blatantly stupid idea of atom bombs and computers being natural, even though both of these items are clearly made by people (with assertions like that, you just destroy most of your credibility, at least own up to it), the fact remains that your post directly implies that homosexuality isn't natural.

You've also said that your natural principles belief system adheres to the man-made unnatural tome of Genesis, part of the Old Testament which includes Leviticus which says "NO BUTT SECKS K LOL ALSO NO PIGS OR SHELLFISH CUZ **** ANIMALS THAT I MADE". This you reinforced with your multiple references to the Seventh Day Adventist study.

Now, you are saying you don't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons, but you aren't using religious reasons because you can't defend them. So you're using single instances and pseudo-definitions and attempting to weave this web of sophistry to tell me that naturally, people should not be gay.

And it's downright laughable, really. No wonder you dodged so many of my questions. You can't stay consistent with the ones you do answer.

One, I didn't ask you a very hard question.

Well, if you softballed me, you're a fool. I've had you on the ropes or in hiding most of this discussion. Either you have some great argument to defend your position or you don't. If this didn't mean anything to you, you wouldn't keep coming back like a coyote, sniping from the sidelines and disappearing back into the darkness.

Two, you seem to be under the impression that we're under some sort of ultimate thread time limit. With some threads on this forum page active now for more than six YEARS, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You seem to be spending a lot of your time on these forums (that precious little spare time you have) bugging Shaky and then failing to make any coherent points when you DO talk to me. And I have repeatedly posted in direct response to you and been ignored while you reply to Shaky.

There's not a time limit, but some of this discussion has been unanswered by you going on two weeks. How much time do you need to defend your point? I said earlier, if you can't concisely explain it to me, you obviously haven't throught it through or you don't know it as well as you think you do. You persisted. Your big mistake.

Three, there's absolutely nothing preventing me from returning to that topic in the foreseeable future.

Or you know, ignoring it and hoping everyone will forget.

Four, with limited time, answering that question effectively means, for today, that I cannot answer OTHER questions that you seem equally insistent about.

Honestly, I just want you to define this natural principles belief system that hates gays. From its foundation, preferably. You gave me a BS definition that requires more explanation, which you shirked responsibility for, and then you went on to focus on the other people who didn't agree with you in the thread. Shaky and I, mostly.

Start small, since I understand you are already at a disadvantage here. Just tell me all about this natural principles system that isn't unnatural or man-made, but comes from the man-penned Genesis book. Go on.

Such as the ones I just answered with this post.

Which is the purpose of presenting me a text wall of multiple questions like you did to BEGIN with, right?

I'll relent since you're so overwhelmed by the simple burden of proving up on the assertions you've made. I understand you have to scour the web, finding biased studies and sources to defend your point, so just stick to the natural beliefs moral system. If you can't defend that, you are wasting both of our time.

Not likely.

You are aware enough of your habit of mockery that you currently even WARN people of it in your profile.

Which I took a screenshot of, viewable below, for proof.

This is a great example of misdirection. LOOK PEOPLE - I HAVE A SCORN/SNARK DISCLAIMER! I MUST BE A BAD GUY!

Have a good day, Moose.

Until next time, BWR. I'm really looking forward to you weasling your way out of your own arguments.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Ignoring the blatantly stupid idea of atom bombs and computers being natural, even though both of these items are clearly made by people
(with assertions like that, you just destroy most of your credibility, at least own up to it) ...

Phrasing is important. Let's see how I actually worded this originally:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Simply "Googling" the word yields the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

adjective: natural

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is useful.
Were we to [go] with the first part as our definition "existing in ... nature",
there would scarcely be any point in a discussion.

Computers and atomic bombs could exist in nature.

The second part is the limiter that provides some practical meaning:
"not made or caused by humankind".

Now, while we're on the subject, let's look up the very first definition of the word "exist" via Merriam-Webster:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual
<did unicorns exist>
<the largest galaxy known to exist>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist

"To have real being ... "

That's the "1a" Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the word "exist".

Nothing about that entails atom bombs and computers needing to be natural in order to be or have real being in Nature.
Merriam Webster dictionary definition 1b might, but not 1a.

For instance, and as was actually in mind when I wrote that, you or I could trek in some unexplored jungle, drop our iPhone unknowingly, and leave it there for future generations to discover.

Was that iPhone made IN Nature?
BY Nature?

No.

It is a computer.
Very much man-made.

It DOES exist, however.

It exists in whatever jungle we dropped it in.

And there it will continue to exist, continue to have real, physical being, until someone discovers and takes it for their own.

Same with our bomb.
Provided, of course, that it landed unexploded as so many World War II bombs
and the like have done in heavily-jungled Pacific Island regions.

That bomb is not a normal part of nature.
But it exists in nature.
It has physical being in nature.

And with the right equipment, you could probably trigger a detonation that would blow it and most of the island away.

At which point the government that sent you over to do that might go:
"Yep. There was a bomb on that island, all right. Good ol' Moose proved it for us ..."

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Now, you are saying you don't approve of homosexuality for religious reasons ...

Show me where I say that.

Quote me directly, please.

Hmmmm You would think a person who believes that a snake talked to a woman named Eve, would NOT be a good source for what is real and what is not real.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Phrasing is important. Let's see how I actually worded this originally:

Now, while we're [b]on the subject, let's look up the very first definition of the word "exist" via Merriam-Webster:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual
<did unicorns exist>
<the largest galaxy known to exist>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist

"To have real being ... "

That's the "1a" Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the word "exist".

Nothing about that entails atom bombs and computers needing to be natural in order to be or have real being in Nature.
Merriam Webster dictionary definition 1b might, but not 1a.

For instance, and as was actually in mind when I wrote that, you or I could trek in some unexplored jungle, drop our iPhone unknowingly, and leave it there for future generations to discover.

Was that iPhone made IN Nature?
BY Nature?

No.

It is a computer.
Very much man-made.

It DOES exist, however.

It exists in whatever jungle we dropped it in.

And there it will continue to exist, continue to have real, physical being, until someone discovers and takes it for their own.

Same with our bomb.
Provided, of course, that it landed unexploded as so many World War II bombs
and the like have done in heavily-jungled Pacific Island regions.

That bomb is not a normal part of nature.
But it exists in nature.
It has physical being in nature.

And with the right equipment, you could probably trigger a detonation that would blow it and most of the island away.

At which point the government that sent you over to do that might go:
"Yep. There was a bomb on that island, all right. Good ol' Moose proved it for us ..."[/b]

What a tremendous waste of time all that typing is, when you're just diverting attention away from yourself again. You completely ignored the bulk of my post again to focus on something unrelated. Your mastery of red herrings I would applaud, except it is a dishonest tactic and you're not very good at it in truth. Others are far better at fitting red herrings in with actual rebuttals, or showing some consistency, if not higher reasoning power.

You can persist in creating a semantic blackhole in which to draw in this argument, but the fact remains that you used the idea of natural principles as indicative of a foundation of a belief system. A belief system which you, using a quote to refer to such, have given support to, and which you have utterly failed to relate to us. I have asked you all January to provide me with a framework for this belief system which you espouse, and you have ignored me as if I am asking something unreasonable.

The pictures I posted of gay animals exist in nature. By your ping-pong style new definition, all those gay animals, regardless of human intervention or intent, exist in nature. So if they exist in nature, regardless of whether or not man has followed the Prime Directive (because you know, animals haven't discovered Warp Drive capability yet), this fits the term 'natural'.

But you still went off on a tangent about how animals can't be gay because of one situation you saw in a video which depicts animals partaking in homosexual acts due to their living conditions altered or effected by humans. This one case.

Kind of like how you take the comics versus burden of proof situation and apply it as a justification to not adhere to this principle elsewhere, because of those cases.

Amusing.

Show me where I say that.

Quote me directly, please.

I did, several times. If you mean "when did you explicitly say it", I don't have such things. You are very keen to not attach yourself to anything, simply inferring and picking at the edges of things. When I said that your natural belief system (which you still refuse to share with the group) probably discriminates against homosexuals, you directly attempted to refute me, using your poor grasp of semantics and context and that one study which verifies that animals shouldn't be gay because it's 'unnatural'.

It's not a stretch to say that if you feel animals are unnaturally gay, humans are too. I'm simply filling in the blanks since you refuse to man-up to your own assertions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hmmmm You would think a person who believes that a snake talked to a woman named Eve, would NOT be a good source for what is real and what is not real.

The whole approach of "ignore large bulk of post, pick on the small details, use misdirection etc" is entirely dishonest, and my assumption is that BWR is lying to himself as much as to us half of the time.

Got to love people who base their moral beliefs and worldviews around 2k+ year old shepherd's tales.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...Got to love people who base their moral beliefs and worldviews around 2k+ year old shepherd's tales.

😂

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've not conceded that the Creation story is not a literal story.

I've been asking Shakyamunison why he doesn't believe it's a literal story.

I'm looking for solid reasons AGAINST the Creation story being a literal story from him.

And not really getting any.

Instructions
1
Look for a didactic theme or moral tone in the work. Allegory is often used as an embodiment for moral qualities and messages as in Aesop's Fables. The story itself is constructed in such a way as to convey a central theme or lesson.

2
Take note of other literary devices such as satire that are often used in conjunction with allegory. George Orwell's political satire "Animal Farm," for example, uses animals and a farm setting as a representation of human society and a critique of politics.

3
Search for characters that are personifications of ideas like greed, envy or hate. Often their names help to decipher their literary purpose. John Bunyan's allegorical masterpiece, "Pilgrim's Progress," is a prime example with characters such as Christian, Old Honest and Lord Carnal Delight.

4
Identify fantasy, science fiction or supernatural elements in a work. These forms, both as a genre and a device, are often used metaphorically to reflect an idea or belief about the real world. C.S. Lewis in "The Chronicles of Narnia" uses fantasy as a genre and allegory as a literary device to do just that.

it clearly meets 3 of the above criteria to an extent that would seem excessive for an actual historical account.

Originally posted by red g jacks

How to Spot an Allegory in Literature

1
Look for a didactic theme or moral tone in the work. Allegory is often used as an embodiment for moral qualities and messages as in Aesop's Fables. The story itself is constructed in such a way as to convey a central theme or lesson.

2
Take note of other literary devices such as satire that are often used in conjunction with allegory. George Orwell's political satire "Animal Farm," for example, uses animals and a farm setting as a representation of human society and a critique of politics.

3
Search for characters that are personifications of ideas like greed, envy or hate. Often their names help to decipher their literary purpose. John Bunyan's allegorical masterpiece, "Pilgrim's Progress," is a prime example with characters such as Christian, Old Honest and Lord Carnal Delight.

4
Identify fantasy, science fiction or supernatural elements in a work. These forms, both as a genre and a device, are often used metaphorically to reflect an idea or belief about the real world. C.S. Lewis in "The Chronicles of Narnia" uses fantasy as a genre and allegory as a literary device to do just that.

Good challenge.

Might require some serious research to counter effectively.

Reflexive answer: Everything listed above is a product of Western Literature, which follows Eastern and Judaic writings by several centuries.

Western writers write fiction with the concepts you mention in mind. Deliberate and easy to see in some cases. Mention of George Orwell, for instance, reminded me of the opening to his anti-Utopian novel, 1984:

"It was a bright, cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen ..."

Meaningless to the beginning high school student.
Packed with meaning for a reader experienced with literature.

April is springtime. Era of warmth, blooming, rebirth.
So ... why is it cold?

Clocks were striking ... thirteen?
What kind of clock could this be?
Thirteen is noted as an unlucky number.
It is also ... military time.

Perfectly in sync with the overall premise of 1984.

For the world of 1984 has so long dealt with death, and misery, and war that the landscape itself has become desolate and barren, and people have lost nearly every trace of basic humanity. Constant, ceaseless war on every level of life and its horrible effects. Suggested from the very first sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know Eastern or Judaic writings on any level comparable to my knowledge of Western literature. Do you find the same devices we developed in the last 400 years (everything mentioned except Aesop's fables is 1614 or later, and, from what I understand, most of what we call Aesop's fables were actually written by people other than Aesop withing the last 4 centuries as well) used by Middle East people living thousands of years before us?

Did formal history books as we know them today even exist back then?
What name did they go by?

The only people I can think of who could answer such questions at the moment would be Rabbinical scholars, or ancient Middle East researchers.

(I imagine there are websites for this sort of thing, of course.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never met Jesus, so I would never say I knew him. I wish I could say that I have read his writing, but there are none. I've never met Buddha also, but I have read his writings.

I hope I didn't make that request, because I was just joking.

If your library consists of only one book, then you cannot say you have a well rounded library. I say read the bible, then move on. There are many books like the bible, in the world. Read them all.

I think you are being too general.

Why not see Jesus as a human. To me, that makes his teaching more valuable.

I suggest that you are not at the end of your journey, but instead your voyage has just begun.

You cannot find God in a book.

I think your ego has taken control of your direction. Let go of the self and listen to the quiet voice (the Karmic Voice).

OK.

Let go. Stop trying to place the round peg into the square hole that is in front of you. Look elsewhere for the round hole.

The pursuit of God will lead you to all places, and all gods. For all things are part of God.

Do you love and cherish every cell in your body? If you don't does that mean you hate your body? No. You don't look at the cells of your body in that way. This is an analogy that will help you understand God, and as I would say Buddhahood.

Be careful of the ego. It will guide you in the wrong direction.

In my religion, Jesus is a Bodhisattva. He is one of us who has reach a point of growth that his next step is to enter Nirvana. However, he/she has chosen to return and point the way for the rest of us. I am the way, is what he/she said. Note: I say he/she because the true entity of Bodhisattva Jesus is nether male or female.

I cannot answer this question.

Then your morals are so poor I cannot trust what you said above but we are not that far away from thinking the same. Your answers do not fit my statements so I think you were doing your reply too quickly. As you ended with me not seeing Jesus as only human and that is not my position at all.

I could go long here but I am late and have much reading to do here and being as wrong on what I wrote as you are, I would be wasting our time.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
Is there documentation or data behind this? I didn't know gnostics to be an especially put-upon group in modern society. At least relative to several religious groups that are openly mistrusted and persecuted.

Also, there are gnostic churches. I have a friend who's a gnostic bishop. To say the churches "dare not teach" certain things is a bit misleading. That's true of any belief if you selectively pick which churches to compare it to.

I was not talking modern society. I was talking when the Nag Hamadi folks buried Gnostic gospels for safe keeping as the purge was on. That was about the first century but things got deadly when Constantine bought the then Orthodox Church. You would have to read some of the historical accounts of that day. Most of my history is scattered in various Gnostic text. Most all of them speak of the history of the Christian persecution of the Gnostic mystery schools that Constantine did not favor. He wanted sheep where we are goats.

My reference was to Christian churches who do not teach the esoteric teachings of Jesus. I have no Gnostic churches in my area and have no real idea as to what they are teaching.

I will take anything you can give on that.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My Jesus is Carl Sagan.

A good choice but you should try to grow into your own internal one. All others are second best.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Then your morals are so poor I cannot trust what you said above but we are not that far away from thinking the same. Your answers do not fit my statements so I think you were doing your reply too quickly. As you ended with me not seeing Jesus as only human and that is not my position at all.

I could go long here but I am late and have much reading to do here and being as wrong on what I wrote as you are, I would be wasting our time.

Regards
DL

Why would you believe that my morals are poor? Is this religious bigotry? You do realize that some Christians might think you are immoral because you don't believe like they do. Do you fit into that category?

I took the time to answer you line by line. You should return the favor. Or do you just not have any answers?