KorbenDallas
-
Posts
1,452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Everything posted by KorbenDallas
-
MSK, Was doing that before, and was doing embeds okay. It was an issue with the embed code itself.. I got it to work (prev post) by getting the embed code using the latest version of Chrome, as the code from Firefox 39.0 or IE11 didn't work in this specific instance (where they worked with others). Seems I'm cured of ED. Glad it was temporary.
-
-
-
No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't make it work
-
Validation of self-esteem, they are merely objectively reflecting back to you who you are. Congrats!
-
(embed fail )
-
Circular argumentation (petitio)
-
MSK, Cruz attacked Trump earlier in the campaign about his temperament, I dug up this article about Cruz's accusations: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/18/463532705/cruz-questions-trumps-temperament-as-commander-in-chief Cruz is essentially describes Trump as being unstable here, and now that Trump is calling Cruz unstable (after Cruz's actions), it seems to neutralize the original argument. Smart move by Trump?
-
Wow what a video, I happened to pause it at 1:59.5 and got a good laugh with the faces (Tamara's mouth wide open, Maria laughing). Just before this timestamp, Omarosa said to Tamara, "I should have called you a boob." (All boobs, no brain.) My guess is Tamara will be watching this video to try to figure out what the hell happened
-
What exactly is common sense? The men I described think it is common sense to do these things, and practical as well:
-
Got brushed up on Kant, but it really does. The examples in my first post applied to a group setting would get chaotic, as you said. Social voting could occur, whether explicit or implicit, to determine what's "good" in establishing the Kantian universal moral. It would then be amoral in this setting to go against the universal, as it is deemed undutiful to do so--because the collective reigns over the individual, duty over identity. Rand's The Age of Envy, and The Comprachicos talk about the pack mentality, and after doing a web search I found a new-to-me Rand article entitled Causality vs. Duty that is somewhat related as well: http://pweb.netcom.com/~cbell58/article/ayn_rand_causality_versus_duty.htm
-
Nope, used maxim as defined by the 2nd edition OED, 3rd sense, "A rule or principle of conduct..." Kants categorical imperative is bogus
-
Exactly. The Golden Rule depends on what the person values--the person might think it is "good" to treat people badly, as he expects people to do this unto himself. This type of person enjoys conflict, uses the Golden Rule as a maxim. How about a Heraclitian mentality, of strife and change--meaning he creates the strife and you change? He would expect this kind of treatment from others, of the fight, the predator/prey. The masochist, the person who enjoys seeing people suffer, that attempts to make other people suffer as he expects this unto himself. The Golden Rule is too bromidic, and needs to be cast out. It's unprincipled, says nothing to the nature of man, of why we need values, and an Objective value system, in the first place.
-
The loudest Trump boos came after he mentioned the WTT coming down under George W Bush's reign, and Fox and most major networks are saying this was a huge mistake--but was it? I think Trump might be thinking way ahead on this one. It doesn't play well in SC, but will play well in New York.. a state Trump has already said he can win. Thoughts? edit: (changed NC to SC..)
-
-
-
Thanks for posting this
-
I didn't say you were. I only said that it was a screwy idea and that no Christians I know felt that way. Your subsequent remarks had absolutely nothing to do with your original comment about inducing guilt by referencing God's sacrifice for man. That's just plain stupid. I re-read everything. I thought when you quoted the god's sacrifice and guilt sentence you were bringing the rest of the context along with it, so I replied to a context and not the sentence itself. Not admitting to your "That's just plain stupid" comment. God's sacrifice and guilt is not a "screwy idea"--also for clarity this isn't my idea, it occurs in churches There isn't an argument here, these are facts.
-
Southern baptist. No, I don't need passages quoted to me. Your context for Original Sin that I quoted has already received the theological treatment and has corresponding implications for practicing the religion, and I was pointing that out. I thought I'd help by offering other theological interpretations of Original Sin that you might, or might not, not be aware of. Christianity is nauseating, that's what all the barfing was about.
-
This is a non sequitur. What you're saying now has absolutely nothing to do with your previous comment about God's sacrifice inducing guilt. That's the screwy idea I commented on. No, no. I said "or would-be religionist", so you read me wrong, I was not implying it introduces guilt in all cases. Be educated here, the story of god's sacrifice introduced guilt on many people while in church. I was not one of those cases, however. I never said this.
-
I started out my post with it.. from church: ... I know christianity as I was around church and christians growing up, did a lot of reading of the bible directly when younger, and my previous post was all from memory. I fact-checked it afterward and it's consistent with some the major theologians' version (interpretations/views) of Original Sin. You identified a more determinist view. The next version I supplied is more of a volitional interpetation. The third is neither, it's more of a malevolent universe view with satan being omnipresent, the tide of evil being greater than that of good.
-
The origin of Original Sin is often a discussion at "church", it's really not written in stone, as it were. One interpretation is it occurred when adam and eve chose to bite into the apple, as god made the garden of eden perfect and man perfect, but satan's temptation was too great, so adam and eve chose to bite into the apple. God's punishment then was men were to be mortal, and the only way to heaven is through him. In this version, each man is a moral sinner by his nature, for the rest of his mortal life, even if he repents and is led to god, he has to deal with the temptation of sin for the rest of his life. (And what if he doesn't sin for the rest of his life? Doesn't matter, you're a sinner anyway.) Another version was Original Sin occurred when the angel lucifer betrayed god, and lucifer had his fall from grace. In this version sin is more existentially omniscient, satan is an unseen force out there in the world that creates situations and temptations to look out for while us mere mortals are trying to live our lives. Only god can help you navigate this evil universe that satan is part of. An "example" of satan in the world would be at the aforementioned garden of evil. I just barfed a little.
-
First hand experience from several churches growing up. First (from several in the "fellowship") it was, "god is watching over you at all times." Okay, young me thought, that sounds kind of nice. Then later (again, from several in the "fellowship"), "god is in you." Wait, young me thought, "in me?" I asked for clarification. They said, "yes, inside you." Young me thought, "I didn't sign up for this." Different church, same thing. Different people at public school, from different churches. Same thing. Spoke to a local psychologist one time, same experience (he brought it up). God, in the brain, a consciousness watching your thoughts. Helping you. Making you "happy". I can type more, but you get the picture. Not all christians are like this, but many are. People can hide many things in a social setting. I'm not trying to convince you, I have made my own independent inductions from the data around me. You speak as if god exists. Your hypothetical has an arbitrary apodeictic modality to it, which is (not) logic, as the antecedent doesn't exist. I'll reject it,
-
Just adding to what MSK said. The story of god sacrificing his "only begotten son" is also meant to apply a huge amount of guilt to the religionist, or would-be religionist. It goes like this: the religionist hears the story (or is explicitly told this by a member of the "Church"), thinks to himself "so god sent jesus to die for everything that I do wrong in my life?", guilt is felt, and once you add in the altruist code--the religionist is now indebted to god, and the only way to salvation is to "accept jesus into your heart". Barf. There are other ways into the religion, this is one of them. I could type more here. Need to provide a correction. "..there is only one thing to obey. Accept Jesus. After you do that, there are some rules, but they are not deal-killers. The only deal-killer is to reject Jesus and/or God," holds true for catholicism and perhaps judaism, where god is an impersonal god, but for most of the denominations of christianity, god is a personal god and once you accept jesus, it's required you accept, as a standard, the delusional schizophrenic psychological condition of placing god into your mind as a totally omniscient consciousness in every way, and all the time. They call this psychological condition "accepting christ into your heart", and it is a matter of degree of the acceptor of how much they carry this out, ie. infect their mind. Much of the time the degree of the infection is concomitant with their fear of going to hell. Barf.
-
