PDA

View Full Version : Classify yourself religiously


Zoom Rabbit
01-18-2004, 10:23 AM
Well, here we are at the official Deleted *alternative religion* thread. This is where you get to say what you consider yourself to be in religious terms, whether it be atheist, ambivalent to it all, or a card-carrying believer in the Little People.

No Klingons (http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/images/klingons.jpg), though. They slew their gods--end of story. :max:

Religious discussions are notorious for becoming flame wars (http://aimeemajor.com/images/photos/ax2001/fight.jpg) on the forums. However, they can be kept peaceful if the participants follow two simple rules:

1. Respect each other's opinions.
2. Be courteous.

Now then. :dozey: That means that when Billy the punk cyberterrorist blunders into the thread and says he believes in Satan (http://www.comfortage.com/assets/chairs/hellok/hello%20kitty.jpg), and that all the rest of us will be sacrificed to him...we simply shrug and say 'Whatever (http://www.museum.upenn.edu/44eyes/bigbird.gif).' ;) Everyone can believe whatever they want, even if it's nonsense.

I've seen discussions of this type go well for the most part. We're all old enough to have a civil discussion on a bulletin board about this subject, I think. And if anyone isn't civil...well, see the *Heads taken* sidebar under my avatar? Enough said.

Okay. As I said in Groovster's thread, I would classify myself as a 'secular christian mystic samurai.' Naturally, my beliefs don't entirely fall into one standard classification (having developed them myself over my lifetime as opposed to merely accepting a doctrine at face value,) so I've chosen four of them which highlight key points of my worldview.

Secular (http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/gravity.gif): I see the atheist's point of view. I don't believe the universe is being run by a little man in a room somewhere. My thoughts on this are discussed more fully in the following sutra.

Christian (http://www.midtod.com/bestof/jesus.gif): My upbringing, where I come from...and the philosophy that I've found the most useful in my spiritual life. As a christian, though, I'm even more of a heretic than Martin Luther was. :D

Mystic (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/jpgs/god.jpg): I talk with God. You are free to think I'm utterly bonkers on this point.

Samurai (http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/imageE2H.JPG): I appreciate and value buddhist thought as much as christian, and don't find them in conflict. My soul is that of a warrior, and so I choose the samurai legacy to integrate into my life. I also find zen extremely useful, which had a shared history with the samurai.

I suppose from someone else's point of view, I am a man of conflicting viewpoints (http://www.bobsmiley.com/images/straightjacket.jpg). This is only because I'm using the standard words of others; the truth between secular and atheist is somewhere in between, and so I call upon both to resolve the mind upon my intended viewpoint. Further clarification is described in the following sutra (http://www.heavenlygardens.org/album/painting/guru.jpg) (an inspired writing.)

The Three Atheists Sutra

Thus have I heard--

Once, a gentle hippy sat mediatating in the park. In the warm, springtime sun he basked alone for most of the morning, until three people interrupted his quiet solitude.

A child, a young man and an old man stood before the hippy. They were together, and the child wanted to know what he was doing, sitting cross-legged on the grass with his eyes closed on such a lovely day.

The hippy smiled. 'I'm meditating. That's a big word that means a lot of things to a lot of different people...but to me it means I'm trying to find God.'

'God.' The boy was skeptical. 'I'm not so sure I believe in God.'

'Why not?' said the hippy.

'I just don't think one guy made everything, that's all.'

'I don't think so either,' he winked. 'I don't think he was a guy, person, or even a being.'

The child was confused by this. Now the younger man said, 'I'm afraid I don't believe in God, either, mister. Never mind what He was, how could any God create a world with so much suffering in it?'

The hippy held up a finger and said gently, 'Grow up. The choice made on your behalf by God was not between pleasure and suffering, but between existance or nonexistance.'

The younger man looked to the child and shrugged. Now it was the older man's turn to speak. 'I respect what you believe, but I must say that I really don't believe in a God myself.'

'Oh? Why is that?'

'I just don't think that any thing, mind or idea we might have of a God can actually be that thing. A thing that is by nature infinite cannot be a thing. The logic just doesn't work.'

'There is one thing that can be infinite,' smiled the hippy, 'and you are almost certain to misunderstand what I say here: it is no thing. As nonexistance, a totality without observer, no thing is that prerequesite for the existance of any thing which lies continuously behind the entire universe.'

'Huh?' grunted the older man. 'What the hell does that mean?'

'Beats me,' said the hippy. 'I almost had it all figured out when you guys interrupted me, and I lost my place. Now I have to start all over again...'

The moral of this story: don't talk to hippies in the park.

Om! Peace.







:) So. What does everyone else consider themselves?

ptdc
01-18-2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit
Everyone can believe whatever they want, even if it's nonsense.
Nonsense in this case is a matter of opinion, but of course I know I'm right. I'm athiest.

Shivermetimbers
01-18-2004, 02:36 PM
I'm not really anything. Just kind of the, be a good person more or less and everything will be ok. Works pretty well. Except that I am sometimes very evil.

Ernil
01-18-2004, 03:17 PM
I'sa one of dem Lutheran kids. I believe in God. That's...basically it.




See: Church for more details.

Ray Jones
01-18-2004, 04:50 PM
i see religion as a kind of guide through/for life and for me that's a point where is no difference between religions. it's like languages are doing the same but are more or less different. so definition and interpretation mainly make out the difference between several religions/beliefs/whatsitcalled ..
and i see the limitations coming with language, no matter how 'complex' they or the constructs out of it are. here i draw an analogy to religion too. no matter what it says, it never says enough.
although i am a big "what/how/why-question", i dont need answers or proofs for everything. so i dont need a religion that 'answers' or 'proofs' everything. my guide through life is life itself. and on my way through life i find the answers/proofs i want the way i want. for me there is no "meaning of life". life just happens. it's a normal thing in what i call "reality". so religion is just not what i need. and i usually dont take what i dont need.

Orca Wail
01-18-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit
The moral of this story: don't talk to hippies in the park.

I figured that out on my own :dozey:.

I don't know WHAT I'm supposed to be. I learned about this (http://www.skepsis.nl/tarot.jpg) a few summers ago. I have found it very useful for reflection and getting in touch with...um...am I scaring (http://www.thegreatillusion.com/death.jpg) you yet?

But I go here (http://olma.org) . And I was baptized, communionized, and confrimed. They teach us that there is only one God, and that practicing this (http://www.nla.gov.au/libraries/resource/expix/magick.jpg) in anyway, shape, or form for any reason is deliberatly going against God. So is divintation, so...I'm being bad (http://dragonfly.cox.miami.edu/Bunz/tarot.jpg) .

:confused: x10


ah, well. There's my two cents. If you wanna flame me for it, talk to my good friend (http://media.gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/cartoons2002/1013_02.jpg) here. ;)

PS...I refuse to be classified! (I marked "other" on my PSAT form! Power to the wierdos!)

Zoom Rabbit
01-19-2004, 12:27 AM
Orca: I've studied the occult (http://dragonfly.cox.miami.edu/Bunz/tarot.jpg) as well, and don't see where it conflicts with what religions are talking about. Wherever I see prohibition against *magick (http://www.conviviality.org/third%20eye.jpg)* I also see the meddling hands of humans getting into the mix. Religious doctrine in the east, for example, studies these matters more openly...

Ray: Interesting. I, too, think of religions as languages. For example, I could say 'black,' 'noir,' 'negro,' or 'schwarz'...but really, I'm only talking about one color. :dozey: Consequently, I could say either 'trinity,' 'trimurti,' 'sambon' or the 'three precious ones,' but really what I'm talking about is one thing.

Okay, three (http://grenier2clio.free.fr/hindou/pic/trimurti.jpg) things. :D

Darth Groovy
01-19-2004, 08:01 AM
What do you sing in a church that worships corn?

"A Maise-ing Grace"?


*runs out of the room dodging tomatoes, eggs, and various projectiles*

SamNMax
01-19-2004, 01:57 PM
I don't like to talk about my religoin much, since I always get yelled at by other people, saying that I'm wrong.
I pretty much ride the same train as Shivermetimbers.

Ray Jones
01-19-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit

Ray: Interesting. I, too, think of religions as languages. For example, I could say 'black,' 'noir,' 'negro,' or 'schwarz'...but really, I'm only talking about one color.
:dozey: Consequently, I could say either 'trinity,' 'trimurti,' 'sambon' or the 'three precious ones,' but really what I'm talking about is one thing.


and here's the limitation: speaking of the color black (no matter which language) we're using our knowledge and experiences concerning color and black. basicly those will be the same because basicly we have similar experiences with "colors" and "black". so we can say language needs existing information to produce more information. .. speaking of trinity reminds me immediatly of that guy on the left in my sig pic. you would have to explain your meaning for it to me. BUT.. it'll always be that guy for me. i'll just gain another load of knowledge somehow connected to "ahh. zoom talks about trinity again!"
to start at level 1.. HOW would you explain the color black to me? you would have to explain "color" first. or not? and i dont mean that we find a translation or physical/ whatever description for it. that is the point where 'languages' dont work. everything that's build upon languages wont work here.
can there be communication without a language? would there be a color "black" without a color "black"? what would black be without being "black"? what would "black" look like if it would be "white"?

so what's basicly trinity? what are you talking about. that one guy in my sig pic? ;)

..
and at the end, isnt atheism just another religion? and after all isnt what you may call 'god' just what i may call the 'blahblahblah-phenomenon'?
doesnt it all just depends to a certain level and combination of knowledge and experience? doesnt that all just result in a big 'theory' that some call "faith" others "theory" but all 'believe' in it somehow and for certain reasons?

what am i talking about? questions? or that one guy in my sig pic?

and is that groovy who slept in while running out the door? :p

samnmax: is being wrong wrong? or just not right or right yet? and is being right right, or just not wrong or wrong yet?? ;)

Guybrush122
01-19-2004, 07:25 PM
I am a punk cyber terrorist. I believe in satan. You will all be sacrificed to him. I also enjoy eating toast and listening to Celine Dion.





Heh, right. Used to be athiest (I'm an angry child), but now I'm agnostic: don't know if there's a God. Not really sure. I'm just gonna live by my own moral standards, and hope that, if there is a God, it's good enough for him or her. I like to think that God (if he or she exists) wouldn't condem us to an eternity of torment, insomnia, burning, and torture because we, say, didn't know the right religion to believe in. Or perhaps, stole some panties from K-Mart (ahem), or coveted something of our neighbors (and/or corespondents...heh).















*smells the fresh air* ...nice day to run into walls.


















*bang*



Ah, wall, I've missed you so...

Ray Jones
01-19-2004, 08:22 PM
panties? k-mart?

*runs*












....







*hits guybrush122 and slams him against the wall*

Guybrush122
01-19-2004, 08:37 PM
*tsk tsk tsk* Ray...you forgot to get naked and cry.

Ray Jones
01-19-2004, 08:56 PM
*location: kmart*











..



*ray, naked and crying, jumps into a pile-o-pantees(TM)*

Guybrush122
01-19-2004, 09:12 PM
Oooh, good use of the (TM) !

Hmmm...but what of the wall?

Ray Jones
01-19-2004, 09:19 PM
over at the wall-mart,...





pile-o-tapestries.....(TM)

:dozey:






..

Skinkie
01-20-2004, 02:38 AM
Ve are here to view the tapestries, this is a castle is it not? There are tapestries?

Alia
01-20-2004, 12:35 PM
Late, as usual. I'm a Lutheran. (http://www.robertfulford.com/GarrisonKeillor.html)

*hits tapestry-covered wall*

Orca Wail
01-20-2004, 01:02 PM
GUYBRUSH! (you're back!)

*attempts to hug* GET BACK HERE!

Hey...wait...isn't this about religions :dozey:

This is where free Theology discussion oft goes anyway, so...

*slams Guybrush into tapestry-covered wall*

Joshi
01-20-2004, 01:13 PM
Hindu

Acrylic
01-20-2004, 11:01 PM
Roman Catholic

muskawo
01-20-2004, 11:23 PM
I would consider myself to be Christian, but I don't really relate to most chirstians I know very well at all.
I used to go to church and I went to a christian school, but most "full on" christians I meet are very judgemental and have no sense of humour about the world. I believe in a higher power... and the christian beliefs are pretty close to what I beleive in most of the time. Most Christians wouldn't call me one though, I don't think.

Basically, I've been in some tight situations before... and it just couldn't have been luck or coincedence that got me through.That's why I believe in God.

Skinkie
01-21-2004, 01:57 AM
Oh, and I'm Methodist, in your face!

Guybrush122
01-21-2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Orca Wail
GUYBRUSH! (you're back!)

*attempts to hug* GET BACK HERE!


Woohoo! I was missed! I feel so significant....

Furthermore...

*slams Guybrush into tapestry-covered wall*

:brow:

Orca Wail
01-21-2004, 10:25 PM
Whaa? Whats with that face?...YOU PERV!!!!!:eek:



*calls on secret hidden smelly undead army*

ATTACK!

Guybrush122
01-22-2004, 10:25 PM
*In a state of shock, Guybrush does something wall-related*

Acrylic
01-23-2004, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Guybrush122
*In a state of shock, Guybrush does something wall-related*

Ummm...run into it perhaps? :p

Guybrush122
01-23-2004, 12:41 AM
Perhaps...;)

Alia
01-23-2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Guybrush122
Woohoo! I was missed!

Dude! That's why you're still alive!

*takes aim again*

Ernil
01-23-2004, 03:33 AM
Hey. I'm Alia. I don't really have a religion, but I enjoy making sacrifices to the underlord that I let take over my soul every Thursday night! I also take care of bunnies when their masters are on vacation.

Zoom Rabbit
01-23-2004, 12:35 PM
Ernil: I don't believe that you're Alia. If you were, you'd be taking care of me (http://pages.prodigy.net/rhea54/tweety/bugsbunny.gif). :dozey: My master's gone away...

Ray: Trinity (http://www.canterburystainedglass.com/images/trinity.jpg) is a concept that most mystics run across in one way or another--which is why it turns up in all the religions. Basically, three (http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/trinity/projects/egypt/clipart/pyramid.gif) is the smallest number that can exist (as a concept) in our universe, and this gets embedded within the fractal matrix of it all as a pattern which repeats at other points in the unfolding universe. It can be demonstrated in our notion of *black* thus: there is black, and there must be white as an opposite to bring it into being, and there must also be a point of view (http://www.humanpower.freeserve.co.uk/iran%20desert%20road.jpg) from which to perceive black.

Back to that three being the smallest number possible bit. :D The smallest number possible would be zero, right? Well, nothingness can't exist in a vacuum (http://www.impressionmanagement.com/images/bush.jpg); once it is conceived as such, it becomes a thing (if only an idea) which means we must have at least the concept of one. However, once we have the concept of one we must have a point of view from which to perceive (http://money.cnn.com/2002/10/31/news/companies/martha_stewart/martha_stewart_points.ap.03.jpg) it--now we're up to two. With these two things, self and other or perceiver and object, there must be a division of some sort between them. Distance (http://www.treknology.8m.com/wormhole.gif) no matter how small must cross something...so we must have at least three in order to have existance as we know it.

Here is trinity as expressed in our ever-popular wall (http://freshteam.telefragged.com/team/yogi/content/texturedesign/texture_38.jpg). There is the wall, there is your nose, and there is the sidewalk for you to bang your head on. ;)

Skinkie: Did someone say tapestries? :max:

The Carpet-Weaver's Sutra

Thus have I heard--

That the ancient art of hand-weaving the carpet is one that is passed from master to apprentice over many years. The master knows things about carpet-weaving that he cannot express with words, so he must guide the apprentice to the point where he can realize the same things for himself. In this way the art is passed down, which cannot be expressed with words, and the apprentice becomes a master in his own right.

This makes perfect sense to the master, but confounds the apprentice.

One day, after he had trained his apprentice for many years in the tedious complexities of dyeing and spinning thread, the master decided that it was time to begin teaching him about carpets. "Come sit down with me, and I will teach you what is a carpet."

The boy sat obediently. "But master, I already know what a carpet is! After all, we are sitting on one now."

"Really?" The master clucked his tongue. He held up a spool of thread the boy had dyed and wound just the day before. "If you were to take the carpet and unravel it, it would look just like this spool of unwoven thread. True?"

"Yes. But that spool of thread isn't a carpet yet."

"Ah. But on this spool is a carpet that will be...and if we unraveled the carpet, the resulting spool of thread would be a carpet that had been. It is only now, when it is a carpet, that we do not see it as thread."

"Um...okay."

The master laughed. "But you are also right!" He stood up, grabbed the carpet and held it out, tugging at the corners. "This thing, this square bolt of cloth, is a carpet."

"So the thread is carpet, and the carpet is carpet?"

"It gets better." He walked over to his computer, took the mouse in hand and called up his website. "Here on my home page are some designs of the carpets I have for sale." He enlarged one of the images. "Here is a digital photo of the carpet we were just sitting on. As far as the whole world is concerned...this image is the carpet. It stands for the carpet, in a form which can be shunted and bounced around the internet much more easily than the actual carpet can be."

The apprentice scratched his head. "Master, I'm confused. You say that thread is the carpet, the carpet is carpet, and now the design on the carpet is the carpet! If I keep listening to you, I will become a carpet."

"Some day you will understand, carpet-boy. Until then, just remember this:

'The carpet is its essence, that from which it came and will return.

'The carpet is its form, that which it defines with its essence.

'The carpet is its design, that which emerges from the form and can be identified as concrete in its own right.

'The carpet is all of these things, and all of them together make a carpet. Whenever one makes a carpet, one must remember all three. To forget one of them is to misunderstand the art of carpet-weaving."

Om! Peace.

Joshi
01-24-2004, 04:57 PM
Other good examples of trinities would be the three perceivable dimensions (although time could also be added to make a fourth, and then some scientists found like 7 new ones in order for string theory to work, but I won't go into that) and time itself be constructed of the past, present and future.
Of course some would believe that to be only two considering no one can ever pinpoint the present. Think about it, the past is what has just happened, the furture is what is going to happen and the present is the passage between. But for that to be true, the present has to be infinately small, it can't happen during a second because a second has milliseconds and certain milliseconds will have just happened whilst some are yet to come in 1 second. And it can't be milliseconds because there is only 100 of them in a second which is actually a long time when you think about it and so between milliseconds must be a smaller unit of time, for which past present a future can exist, and then they must exist in that smaller unit of time and then a smaller one until eventually we get to a '0' unit of time which means that the present cannot, and hence must not exist. And if the present cannot exist, how can we be sure anything exists, we only judge our live and existance by what has just happened and what is going to happen and we can never be quite sure what is happening right now.

And I just came up with most of that by myself so I'm going to have a lie down and hopefully forget it all.

Also Ray, you were talking about colours and how to communicate it without physical or oral representation. Well basically, you're asking, if an alien species came along and we wanted to talk to it, how would we establish their language. Simple, the same way we would any new language, numbers. All we'd have to do is hold up two fingers and say 'two fingers'. Then two apples and say 'two apples' and so on and so forth with different objects until they get familiar with the word two representing two of something. Then we'd just work from there until eventually we get round to colours. There isn't really a way to describe black, black is a colour, but it is also a description in itself and therefore cannot be desribed itself. It's like a primary colour, it cannot be made up of other colours, it in itself can only exist.

In reality, we are quite simply just a lucky species of ape who are now talking through a language that was originally developed in order to tell one another where the good berries are, and that's about the brunt of it. I suggest people read this short story (http://www.ie.lspace.org/books/dawcn/dawcn-english.html) for a better insight on things (it's also quite amusing).

Guybrush122
01-24-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Alia
Dude! That's why you're still alive!

*takes aim again*

Your firearms are useless against me.

Skinkie
01-25-2004, 05:18 AM
I'd like to convert to Remiism, someone put me on the path to this enlightened stature.

Kjlen
01-25-2004, 04:51 PM
Catholic. Just Catholic. It was how I'm raised. It's what I believe. :p Simple enough.

*Claps GuyBrush122 on the shoulders*
Welcome back. Sit. Stay!

Guybrush122
01-25-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Kjlen
*Claps GuyBrush122 on the shoulders*
Welcome back. Sit. Stay!

*rolls over*






*plays dead*


:D good to see ya around, K-Jo

Ray Jones
01-25-2004, 10:27 PM
joshi: you said present itself must be infinite small and basically cannot exist in an infinite small interval of time. i think that is exacly the point of the "existing" present. the present is the future seen from the past and the past seen from the future.
the "space of time" between future and past is the "happening phase", no matter how long it lasts. the bigger this frame of time gets, the more "unsharp" will every observation become. the smaller it gets the more "steady" everything will be.
the exact "now" is an infinite small "bit" of time, the present. at this point time is not of relevance because it does not "change", there is only a still left.
the fact that we never could realize the "now" must not mean it is not existing. also most of the mathematical and physical formulas can still be solved, even with a "0" unit of time, which is an exact point x on the timeline.
so the only thing that actually really exists at a certain point of time is the present.
as you said, a trinity would be "past causes the present causes the future".
but seen from a certain point of view, past, present and future are all the same thing, the "now". time itself is a infinite long chain of those "nows".
as a time depended individual you may theoretically, if you once know one "now", be able to predict all the following, future "nows". practically it is quite impossible because of one (known) not predictable variable: life.
and also you could only "predict" the next now. to predict "later nows", you would have to be faster than time, but if time is taken to calculate speed, how can time itself have a speed? .. hmmm.. i think there is a way but it would go to far.. i think.


In reality, we are quite simply just a lucky species of ape who are now talking through a language that was originally developed in order to tell one another where the good berries are, and that's about the brunt of it.

oop oop eek ack *ack oop* (ray say panty tasty *cry naked*) :p


The smallest number possible would be zero, right? Well, nothingness can't exist in a vacuum; once it is conceived as such, it becomes a thing (if only an idea) which means we must have at least the concept of one. However, once we have the concept of one we must have a point of view from which to perceive it--now we're up to two. With these two things, self and other or perceiver and object, there must be a division of some sort between them. Distance no matter how small must cross something...so we must have at least three in order to have existance as we know it.

concept of trinity, eyh? hmmm.. if seen this way.. oookay.. it describes existance as we usually know it. ;)

Zoom Rabbit
01-26-2004, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by RayJones
joshi: you said present itself must be infinite small and basically cannot exist in an infinite small interval of time. i think that is exacly the point of the "existing" present. the present is the future seen from the past and the past seen from the future.
the "space of time" between future and past is the "happening phase", no matter how long it lasts. the bigger this frame of time gets, the more "unsharp" will every observation become. the smaller it gets the more "steady" everything will be.
the exact "now" is an infinite small "bit" of time, the present. at this point time is not of relevance because it does not "change", there is only a still left.
the fact that we never could realize the "now" must not mean it is not existing. also most of the mathematical and physical formulas can still be solved, even with a "0" unit of time, which is an exact point x on the timeline.
so the only thing that actually really exists at a certain point of time is the present.
as you said, a trinity would be "past causes the present causes the future".
but seen from a certain point of view, past, present and future are all the same thing, the "now". time itself is a infinite long chain of those "nows".


Let's say time was a carpet (http://www.stoneart.cc/images/tables/rect/persian_rug01.jpg). ;) The past is a spool of thread, now is the carpet and the future is the emergent design. A bug on the carpet cannot know every fiber of the carpet, but in theory it is all there...

Ernil
01-26-2004, 04:33 AM
Let's say time was a carpet.


I vote we say time was a...JellyFish.

Joshi
01-26-2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit
Let's say time was a carpet (http://www.stoneart.cc/images/tables/rect/persian_rug01.jpg). ;)

Only one problem there, it isn't, time is time, and for there to be a past and a furutur, the bridge is the present, but each perceivable present consists of another smaller past and future. This will keep on happenening until the present is soinfinately small that it's not even conceivable and according to the laws of mathematics, can only exist as 0, i.e, time not moving at all (it cannot rest on x, that is quite simply 0, and it cannot be less than that because that would suggest time going backwards). Therefore, our world as we see it has no element of time and therefore only has 3 dimensions instead of the 4th dimension of time and therefore proves the theory of trinity!

Turtles all the way.

Ray Jones
01-26-2004, 02:59 PM
to understand time, you have to understand space and to understand space, you have to understand time.

trinity is a model. it's a concept that helps to graph basic principles in a "realized world". but the world isnt out there because it's realized.. and what we call "time" is just what we realize of it. with "space" it's the same.

if we see time as a carpet, the thread would be space and the design the now? hmm. maybe.

how about something like an "iterated" carpet: space is the thread. and the design is space. the carpet itself is the now. a point x on the timeline. and time? time is where design becomes thread.

chaos theory. i love it .. ^^ .. *cough* ::

Emma
01-26-2004, 03:54 PM
I'd prefer to make my own way without believing in a figment of someones imagination, so I'm an athiest and it's great.

Guybrush122
01-26-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Emma
I'd prefer to make my own way without believing in a figment of someones imagination, so I'm an athiest and it's great.

A week ago you would've been my brethrin. GO FORMER BRETHRIN!

Redwing
01-26-2004, 06:23 PM
Zoom: You're a secular christian mystic samurai? Can't say I'm surprised. :D

I am technically, I suppose, a Protestant Christian, but I don't exactly have ...mainstream... beliefs. ;) Naturally, being a bicycle (http://budgetstockphoto.com/samples/pics/rainbow.jpg) and all.

*whistles innocently*

But anyway, I do indeed believe in God, and trust in Jesus, and all that other natter you hear those more vocal Christians talking about. ^_~

Why? Primarily, because everything I've seen in life fits together strangely like one giant cosmic puzzle piece after another, and God of the Bible is the only one who fits the bill for all that stuff I've experienced. Cut everything else away, and that's my reason for still being a Christian, even if believing different things than what I was raised to believe...

And that's how I style myself religiously. ^_^

Orca Wail
01-26-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Emma
I'd prefer to make my own way without believing in a figment of someones imagination, so I'm an athiest and it's great.

:tsk:

Joshi
01-26-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Emma
I'd prefer to make my own way without believing in a figment of someones imagination, so I'm an athiest and it's great.

And what about a figment of your own imagination.

Oh, and Ray, the state of reality is indeterminate until the moment (which I guess we can call the present, at least at the time) they are observed. Curiosity killed the cat. I see you.

Guybrush122
01-26-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Orca Wail
:tsk:

How final :p

Ray Jones
01-26-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Joshi
Oh, and Ray, the state of reality is indeterminate until the moment (which I guess we can call the present, at least at the time) they are observed. Curiosity killed the cat. I see you.

schroedingers cat..? dead? :dozey: how can you know? did you see it? :p

hmmmmmm. i think i've went behind such views, or no, i didnt, but did.

Emma
01-27-2004, 11:48 AM
I don't get it. What is it with religion in America?

And I will personally rip out the insides of anyone who believes in those ****ty 'True Love Waits' bollocks schemes.

Because they're crap and sex before marriage isn't damaging.

Sivy
01-27-2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Emma

sex before marriage isn't damaging.

that all depends on what you're having sex with...


damn splinters




:D

Ray Jones
01-27-2004, 01:06 PM
eeehehehe.
maybe that is one reason why joshi knows so much about vegetables.

emma: ahh, screw it. dont be so angry about it.. .. ;)

Joshi
01-27-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by RayJones
eeehehehe.
maybe that is one reason why joshi knows so much about vegetables.

Sick man, real sick.

Guybrush122
01-27-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Emma
And I will personally rip out the insides of anyone who believes in those ****ty 'True Love Waits' bollocks schemes.

You mean the idea that True Love exists and one must be patient in order to find it? Or the church's whole: "be good, and you won't burn in eternal hellfire for as little as coveting your neighbor's Ming vase...."? Or am I just off completely?

...sex before marriage isn't damaging.


That is, assuming, that both partners want to have sex and are careful about it. Technically rape before marraige is sex before marraige...but that can be plenty damaging on many levels. But I know what you mean and I agree with it. Someone shouldn't have to wait if they don't want to.






Joshi: Don't deny your love for Celery.

Zoom Rabbit
01-28-2004, 12:25 PM
I think that saying sex without an official marriage license is sinful is like saying you're a thief if you don't pay your taxes. :dozey: The state and church might want you to think so, but we're talking about something between you and God (or your conscience, if you will), not them.

What's in your heart? :max: Do you really want this person in a meaningful way, and are you prepared for the possibility of children with them? If so, dive on in. No wall, no box.

Redwing: Remember that anything written in a book by men thousands of years ago on the matter of bicycles might not necessarily be the last word on what God Himself actually thinks about it. ;) Ask Him.

No picts. I feel lazy. Damn you all.

Ray Jones
01-28-2004, 01:30 PM
.. no .. picts?

:eek:


means one of two things:

1. macintosh.
2. something you talked about on rfs ..

my guess?

:dozey:

number 2.

drat. i knew i should have grabbed you when i saw you were online. but i had to work. DAMN GAME JUNKIES!!! *cough*

:D:D:D

Guybrush122
01-28-2004, 01:35 PM
Ray, I don't know why but....Oh God, I think some of my brain has melted.


:p

Ray Jones
01-28-2004, 03:09 PM
HOLY mr potty. melted brain? hui. someone must be playing with the microwave-oven again..

quick! apply this maximum-alu-minimum foil to your head using this hyper polychlorbutadiene adhesive stuff i stolegathered err.. there. or you better take 3 or 4 layers.. yes that is ok.


now do a 1983 turn CLOCKWISE.

now 22334 COUNTERCLOCKWISE.

ok..

now..


RUUUUUUNNNN!!!!




..

*misses a wall*





..



*misses a tree*






*misses jones* (ehehehe. got that one?:D)





*misses a birdy*


*misses deep hanging branches*







*misses another, 2nd wall*




*misses the point*


































eyh guybrush, watch out for that ..
*NEWT*
:dozey:


..

..strange obstacle in the dark..





hey.. it's the 3rd wall! :p

Sivy
01-28-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by RayJones
HOLY mr potty. melted brain? hui. someone must be playing with the microwave-oven again..

quick! apply this maximum-alu-minimum foil to your head using this hyper polychlorbutadiene adhesive stuff i stolegathered err.. there. or you better take 3 or 4 layers.. yes that is ok.


now do a 1983 turn CLOCKWISE.

now 22334 COUNTERCLOCKWISE.

ok..

now..


RUUUUUUNNNN!!!!




..

*misses a wall*





..



*misses a tree*






*misses jones* (ehehehe. got that one?:D)





*misses a birdy*


*misses deep hanging branches*







*misses another, 2nd wall*




*misses the point*


































eyh guybrush, watch out for that ..
*NEWT*
:dozey:


..

..strange obstacle in the dark..





hey.. it's the 3rd wall! :p



huh?

Guybrush122
01-28-2004, 03:37 PM
*frightened by Ray's actions*

*strips down and begins to cry*

*runs naked and crying --aimlessly*






























*misses the first wall*


























*runs by the second wall*

























*nearly dodges the third wall*























*breaks the fourth wall* (baddum bum CHEE)





eheheheh....

Ray Jones
01-28-2004, 07:10 PM
:D:D

Originally posted by Siv
huh?

uuhhmmmm.. .. nothing..
*whistles and goes out of the thread*

..



*drives in a big truck (sooo biig) loaded with tapestries .. and panties*

*unloads it over siv*




*get out of the truck, runs over to another biiiig truck loaded with cough walls*






..













..







*unloads it over siv*
















*gets out of the truck, naked and crying*







*runs, naked, crying .. .. and jumps .. *



tse .. :rolleyes: youth nowadays .. :p

Sivy
01-29-2004, 11:11 AM
*gets up*



*coughs up a pair panties*



*chases ray with a wet towel*



*trips over tapestries*



*coughs up a pair panties*



*gets up*



*continues to chase ray with a wet towel*




*jumps over a fence*






*dodges cow*





*hops over a chicken*





*tiptoes around the sleeping bull *




*jumps on the back on a horse*




*coughs up a pair of panties*



*panties land on horse head making it run round in circles until it falls down and lands on the chicken*




*chicken goes "BUUUCCCKKKAAHH!!" which wakes up the bull*




*coughs up a pair of panties and then runs away from bull*




*bull stops to hump the cow*




*cow tells bull thats she's got a headache*




*now even angrier and sexually frustrated, the bull gives chase*




*a naked ray offerd himself to the bull*




*the bull, seeing ray's naked body runs for it's life*




*misses the first tree*






*and second*





*... not the third*





*shrugs.... then continues to chase ray with a wet towel*




:D





anyway, back onto topic...

Im not religious nor do I not believe in godi prefer to stay neutral.

Alien426
01-29-2004, 11:41 AM
"What if we chose the wrong religion? We're just making God madder and madder every Sunday."
-- Homer Simpson, "Homer The Heretic" (http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0403.htm) (one of the best episodes)

Ray Jones
01-29-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Siv

Im not religious nor do I not believe in godi prefer to stay neutral.

well. i could second that. i am not religous in any way nor do i believe in the power of one "person" some may call god and some err.. "the one that does it all".. or both. .. .. hey i just repeated what siv said. WOW.

and havent i stated something similar before?

crazy time. :rolleyes:

..

i've had a thought last night.. IF there is a god .. would he be a female or she be a male? or both? or nothing of that?

oh, and has anybody seen this futurama episode where bender got lost in space and somehow "becomes" a "god" and then somehow screws it all up and then somehow finally meets somehow some "thing" which somehow turns out to be somehow "god"? they talk somehow about something like "what god is meant to be" or so.
the 'real' answer to it then somehow came with a part of the story of this episode. (huh?)

if you've seen it, my question would be: could that be the way "god" works? or is he some sort of 9 to 5er but more like 24/7?

and will we turn to "gods" if we one day will be able to construct "machines" which are able, based on basic "programs", to "grow", "learn", "develop", "reproduce" themselves and such things?

Emma
01-29-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit
I think that saying sex without an official marriage license is sinful is like saying you're a thief if you don't pay your taxes. :dozey:

Thank goodness Christian morals arn't actually the law all the time, eh? This is what I absolutely despise about religion. For example, in the UK and US Christian moral law, or whatever you want to call it, in the past was implemented as law and to a certain degree is so today. Hello? Not everyone lives by Christianity, there are other religions too. If you don't want to have sex before marriage then fine, but don't implement such a worthless law on other people who'd rather not have anything to do with religion or don't follow Christianity.

There have been a lot of documentaries on TV here in the UK about George Bush's scheme in Texas to ban proper sex education (the only sex ed. teens are getting is being taught abstinance). As a result, these documentaries have been talked about to a great degree and, for the most, part the British public is disgusted that teens arn't being taught how to protect themselves in the event of them having sex. I'd hate to see things turn that way over here.

[i]The state and church might want you to think so, but we're talking about something between you and God (or your conscience, if you will), not them.[/B]

Bollocks. Have you even had sex? It's an act between two people who care for one another and have sexual needs (which is the greatest instinct of humans). The only way it will damage you is if you are not ready for it. I don't regret having sex with any person I've slept with and it has not damaged me in any way.

[i]What's in your heart? :max: Do you really want this person in a meaningful way, and are you prepared for the possibility of children with them? If so, dive on in. No wall, no box.
[/B]

Having sex with someone very rarely ends up with pregnancy if you are using adequate contraceptives. The Pill has a 99% success rate, which is as good as you can get. In the past 5 years I have had zero instances of pregnancy.

So there you have it, having sex with someone without having a piece of paper decreeing it's fine to do so is not the evil you have made it out to be.

Next you'll be telling us eating is evil. ;)

Ray Jones
01-29-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Emma
It's an act between two people who care for one another and have sexual needs (which is the greatest instinct of humans). The only way it will damage you is if you are not ready for it.

this instinct is basically THE main property of LIFE. EVERY FORM OF LIFE we know strives for REPRODUCTION and SPREADING. there is nothing dirty, evil, immoral or whatever..
and DAMAGE? .. hmm. i think there was enough damage done in "the early years" when it was usual to marry the own 12 year old daughter to some 35 year old guy. that fact also might change the meaning of "no sex before marriage" slightly ..



also sex should not silenced down by saying "SSSHHHHHHHDD!! it's bad. DONT DO IT" and in the next second we step into the next porn video store. :rolleyes:
anyone want to teach our youth the "proper" way to practise sex?
deal with it open and straight. they will have their experiences anyway. it is about US ADULTS *cough* to decide how they deal with it. :dozey:

of course this is not meant like "hey, you.. how old are you? 14? then go and do it!"

Emma
01-29-2004, 02:17 PM
Yeah. There are a lot of people in the UK who are trying to get the age of consent lowered (it's currently 16), but I reckon the current legal age is spot on.

Having sex also includes the need to be sensible. :)

Joshi
01-29-2004, 02:43 PM
Very true, people under 16 aren't normally ready for the emotional crap that comes with sex, but by the time they turn 16, they begin to understand the world around them and how sex fits into it and by then have enough maturity to be able to make a decision, and most of the time it's right.

Then again, some people mature sooner or later than others (and if a 14 year old wanted to have sex and found someone to do it with, there are really no barriers and they will do it, so the age consent doesn't really count)

Back onto the subject in hand.

Originally said by Ray
and will we turn to "gods" if we one day will be able to construct "machines" which are able, based on basic "programs", to "grow", "learn", "develop", "reproduce" themselves and such things?

Yeah, these are called children, or babies when they start. don't forget, we as mere humans create these. one could argue that a birth is the act of God and in my view, it is, partly. Of course there would be no child if the couple hadn't made a decision to at least have sex (or at least one of them did... but that's a tragic was to be concieved really, no offence to those who were). In other words, cause and effect created a baby, but I won't, on principals, rule out the idea that god acted as a catalyst in this, or at least was a factor in this. And this is because I believe in him so. I'm not preaching, i'm sharing my views, and don't think of me as one of those "do as god says, do everything god tells you, be good, have no life to speak of, listen to your mother" kinds of people (I'm not Mek), I simply have in my mind that idea that someone, or something out there (and because of common belief, up there) is doing something that's making the world run.

Ray Jones
01-29-2004, 06:54 PM
hehehe joshi, i never was talking about kids.. but its true, from a certain point of view. but i think you got what i mean. also i never was thinking you were preaching, but even if, you could preach until you turn blue, anyways :p ..

;)

i dont know mek, but i what you've said about those "preaching" people is right.. in my opinion.
aaaand even if i tend more to "something" does (causes) something that makes the world run, i cannot surely say it is not "someone", i actually must admit that there is probably "someone" and not "something".. but my experiences and my knowledge ( :confused: ) let me think that i would have to expect "something" .. err.. incredible .. that, for unknown reasons, i refuse to call "god" .. :)
and perhabs i'll ask myself then: "who the heck made this?" :p

so somehow, we may share the same views. we can surely say now, you're complete screwed. :D:D

Guybrush122
01-29-2004, 07:15 PM
I agree, Emma. Right now, in NY, the legal age is 18 and that angers me. You also have to be 18 in order buy pornography which REALLY angers me. Personally, I'm not into porn at all, but the fact that people can't have the right to freakin' look at a naked body (and then some) isn't right. Hell, people who don't want kids to have sex should be encouraging the distribution of legal pornography (I say legal in the sense that the models are willing, eighteen, and aren't exploited or abused in any way) because (1) it's much more harmless than sex. (2) It's certainly not going to hurt ANYBODY of ANY AGE (a five year old, for all we should care, should be able to look at these things because what's it gonna harm him? Granted, a five year old probably won't WANT to look at it--- "ew! girls" or "ew! boys!" ---but they should have the same viewing rights as adults). (3) Mentally scarring? I think not. Violence at a certain age? Yes. Cruelty? Yes. Female and Male anatomy? Riiight.

Overall point, if some guy or girl wants to check out a member of the opposite sex nude (for personal pleasure, for self-education, for whatever) then let them do so with pornography. Hell, I know people who resorted to looking at pornography to understand the Female anatomy---what does THAT tell you about Sex Ed.? We might as well ban Vladmir Nabokov's novels, Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and Led Zepplin's music. All of those things were considered lude, grotesque, and raunchy when they were first written/composed. But they're not banned now, are they?

Zoom Rabbit
01-30-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Emma

Bollocks. Have you even had sex? It's an act between two people who care for one another and have sexual needs (which is the greatest instinct of humans). The only way it will damage you is if you are not ready for it. I don't regret having sex with any person I've slept with and it has not damaged me in any way.

I was talking about marriage and the morality of sex without it being between you and God, not sex. :dozey: Feel free to argue against this, but I connect morality with God.

For the record, I've had lots of glorious (http://www.goddessdance.org/images/photos/ritual.jpg) sex. ;) I've even had Madonna...























--AND Britney Spears. :D (At the same time.)

Ray: Ever notice how a pair of panties (http://www.trailingedge.com/~dlw/images/KiraP1.jpg) has THREE holes in it? I have.

Ray Jones
01-30-2004, 06:29 PM
did you notice how (nearly) every pantee is made of cloth which is actually woven thread? and did you notice that woven thread actually could be produced out of 1 thread and contains quadraziballions of holes? :) i err.. have.. :p

also, i've already seenheard about pantees with "4" holes in it.. *cough* :dozey: i would wonder what you'd use these for *points to zooms helmet* .. :D:D:D